11 ms·

Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

199 points by ehxor 10y ago

jcoffland 10y ago
China has now done 6 crewed missions to space in the last 3 years. In that time, Russia has had 13 manned missions many of which NASA astronauts have hitched a ride on. NASA is still on the ground since discontinuing the shuttle program in 2011.
- djaychela 10y ago
  True, but is it not the case that NASA is focused beyond the level that's being achieved by the Chinese? I appreciate that the sls has its detractors (I'm from the UK so I don't think I have the same internal political perspective that a US commenter might), but aside from that the US government appears to have helped create a nascent private space industry that will yield real fruit in terms of both leo capacity and also beyond in the future?
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    My statements above were neutral but yes I do think that the US and the western world in general are falling behind. What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Privatization of the US space industry is interesting but has yet to prove itself. No private institution has achieved manned orbit.
    - stickfigure 10y ago
      No private institution has achieved manned orbit. That's because manned orbit is motivated by prestige, not rational economic behavior.
      - tellarin 10y ago
        Research (especially pure research) and innovation are many times initially incompatible with rational economic behaviour.
      - 505 10y ago
        Can't perceptions of prestige help actors make market choices?
      - ballooney 10y ago
        Not really, there are commercial agreements in place between both SpaceX and Boeing, and Nasa, as part of its Commercial Crew Programme. The current estimates are that they will not launch until 2018, three years behind the original schedule: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/01/nasa-oig-report-delays-commercial-crews-payments-russians/ http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/01/nasa-oig-report-delay... I also have customers who have been sold slots for their satellites on Falcon Heavy which is now 4 years behind schedule (the first demo flight was originally meant to be 2012, with the first commercial flight in 2013, as yet nothing has flown, with the current estimate being 2017). It's frustrating for these customers. I point this out here just because HN can have too many credulous website designers saying [to the effect of] 'No but Elon will be on Mars in 10 years so we should just fund private companies' and the reality for everyone in the industry is somewhat different. The Indian Government is currently about the cheapest and most reliable commercial satellite launcher in the world with its PSLV vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle
        avar 10y ago
        Countering "there's no economic reason to put humans into orbit" with "but look at these commercial programs 100% paid by the government" isn't really a rebuke, you're just making the OPs point for them. It's only commercial in the sense that say there's say commercial manufacturing of ballistic missile submarines. It's just an implementation detail of how the US (v.s. say China) does manufacturing for purely state-sponsored projects, not something indicating that there's an economic incentive to put people into orbit outside of government sponsored programs.
        kobeya 10y ago
        They (SpaceX at least) are not 100% funded by the government.
        avar 10y ago
        And to the extent that SpaceX isn't funded by the government they have no plans to put people into orbit as a goal in itself, only as a staging area for launching to Mars. So how is any of this a counterargument to stickfigure's "manned orbit is motivated by prestige, not rational economic behavior"?
      - ChoHag 10y ago
        Research is irrational?
        anc84 10y ago
        If personal, economical gain is your goal, yes.
        manarth 10y ago
        R&D is a rational choice for many companies, and their motivation is generally economic rather than altruistic.
        ChoHag 10y ago
        Personal, econonical gain can suck my dick. I can think of hardly anything that's less important.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Would you mind moderating your language a bit?
        sctb 10y ago
        When we ask users repeatedly to comment civilly and substantively and they don't, we have to ban them. We've done so here.
      - jcoffland 10y ago
        That's one way to look at it. The other is that a commercial enterprise will not do something in the name of science if it does not make a buck.
    - fit2rule 10y ago
      In my opinion, cooperation in space is one of the reasons that US/Russian relations haven't broken down already...
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      Dude, we were already behind. The only significant US first in space was the lunar landing - the USSR thrashed the US with everything from Sputnik to venera to Gagarin to salyut. The only difference is that you now have a window out of your propaganda bubble. There's a reason that Chinese space progress is barely reported, if at all, in the west. It's embarrassing, and doesn't tie in with the deluded "west is best" worldview.
      - throwaway123098 10y ago
        But we were not _really_ behind. We were about a year behind (if not less), and much was due to other American advantages: we didn't need huge rockets (which would launch humans into space) since American nuclear bombs were smaller. The reason we don't hear much about China is because that don't do much: Launch a man into space once a year? Land a rover on the Moon? That's 1960s news. If it would be more serious, there would be a "Sputnik scare" like in the 60s, not silence
        ChoHag 10y ago
        > But we were not _really_ behind. We should keep telling ourselves that. It may also help us convince ourselves that our arsehole is indeed the best place for our head to be.
        throwaway123098 10y ago
        Also, Explorer 1 had scientific payload (which discovered the Van-Allen belts), unlike Sputnik
        ChoHag 10y ago
        You keep that masturbation going! You'll convince yourself everything's OK by the end.
        madaxe_again 10y ago
        Sputnik was the science payload - at that point the US were still saying it'd be years until orbit was reached. Ironically, had it not been for the space race, we might have a more mature space program now, rather than one largely based on 1940s technology and engineering. They rushed to production and massively invested in a single model on both sides, rather than exploring options fully before commencing - similar applies to nuclear technology, insofar as thorium would have been the better tech, but was too late to the party to gain traction, never mind the weapon byproduct bit.
    - throwaway123098 10y ago
      The Western world isn't falling behind. It's just not so push-over ahead. What China is doing right now, the USSR did in the 1960s, and the US did in the 70s (it had a ten year detour to go to the moon first). While NASA hasn't done anything innovative in manned space-flight since 1980 (sunk costs, politics, no _real_ need, etc), they've done crazy work with unmanned spacecraft. Think landing a _car_ on Mars (and then driving it around), launching routine missions to outer planets (and beyond!), being the only agency to get a probe out of the solar system. Honestly, if Congress ever feels it necessary to launch someone to the Moon, they'll get it done in less than a decade.
      - 505 10y ago
        And 'driving it around' is not as simple as it might sound, due to the time taken for commands to travel 4 light-minutes (minimum, and almost always a lot more). Feedback similarly.
    - avar 10y ago
      > What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Isn't it literally the case that if the US wanted to send people into space on their own hardware they could do it with months of lead time with the Falcon 9, Delta IV etc.? Those rockets aren't "human rated", but are they (particularly the Delta IV) any less safe then the Soyuz or Chinese rockets? I.e. this seems more of a "we have some rockets, but it's cheaper to launch with the Russians" rather than "we can't do it" problem to me.
      - tjohns 10y ago
        We can launch things to space, yes. But we don't have any vehicles that have life support, abort, or re-entry capabilities. It would be a short, one-way trip. So no, we really can't send anyone to space right now. And the Soyuz is actually pretty safe, relatively speaking. Aside from two notable failures early on, Soyuz hasn't had a fatality in 27 years.
        lmm 10y ago
        We launched an Orion into orbit on top of a Delta IV, no? We could do that again and put people in if we were willing to accept the risk.
        thatsso1999 10y ago
        Orion has been launched once, on a short 4-hour test flight, during which it only orbited the Earth twice. That spacecraft is very, very different than the Orion that is scheduled to launch with humans inside in 2023. It's not a matter of being "willing to accept the risk" - it's just impossible. Safety is one of NASA's highest priorities, (if not the highest, especially after Columbia), so even considering doing such a thing would be unthinkable and is a non-starter. Even if you manage to somehow sidestep decades of a deeply ingrained culture of safety, it's just not even a possibility right now - significant portions of the spacecraft's design have yet to be finalized, and then you have to figure out how to manufacture it, and once you've actually manufactured it, it goes through several rounds of insane amounts of testing and revision before getting anywhere near the launchpad. Spaceflight is incredibly complex - even if NASA somehow managed to get a blank check (like it did during the early space race) there is still a very significant amount of work to be done that takes a very long time, no matter how much money you throw at it.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Having people in space is kind of pointless right now. Yes, it's a low G environment, but ISS is in such a low orbit that people in my state can be further from me than an overhead ISS 'Astronauts'. It's even protected by earths magnetic field making it a poor test of long term space flight.
      - dTal 10y ago
        I won't take a strong position on the larger point of whether humans in space are worth it, but there are other uses for a space station than "being far away", "being low g", and "seeing how many astronauts get cancer".
      - rtkwe 10y ago
        Absolutely wrong. Having a manned station is a boon for the research taking place. Without a station anyone wanting to do research like the packed bed or the docking and refueling experiments would require the investigating institution to design and launch a vastly more complicated automated satellite or to rely on short manned missions that would have more competition for space and time. Instead it's much easier to package an experiment and send it to the station which has a lot of equipment to support experiments and humans that can troubleshoot and modify experiments. As for studying long term space flight the only thing it really doesn't provide a model for is radiation which we can model on the ground pretty well. You still get the other health impacts from microgravity that we're still trying to figure out how to effectively combat.
        Retric 10y ago
        ISS cost ~200 billion, saying we can't do the same research for less is kind of a high hurdle when it's close enough for minimal lag, nobody tried, and people need a lot of ridiculously expensive consumables.
        rtkwe 10y ago
        The lag isn't the hurdle it's making the robotics on the satellite to run the experiment. The closest analog is probably the robot that's used to service the JET reactor at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy [0]. With a station for some types of failures with experiments an astronaut can work around or heavily reconfigure the equipment to still get good data. Without a person up there every experiment launch would have to either just accept failures and write off the whole thing or include whatever system we're talking about that would replace the repair and reconfigure ability of people. Instead the various governments front the cost of having a person in space and it's way easier and cheaper for companies to package and run their experiments. It's a subsidy that opens up the ability to do microG science more easily. Also there's no good alternative way to study the long term microG effects on humans other than a station since you need both space for people to live for up to a year and space for the various experiments on how to combat the deterioration that happens. Having a station up there also teaches us how to work and repair things in space and how things break when they've been running for 15+ years. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtGp8hv-0Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtGp8hv-0Y
    - Eerie 10y ago
      >What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Russia loses the ISS, because it can't be maintained without USA ground facilities. Essentially, it will be the end of Russian manned space flight, until they build themselves a new space station.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  With so much at stake, is it possible for all nations to play together and strive for the better good when it comes to space exploration?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Only in movies. A lot of people (including poliicians deciding about treaties and budgets) do not believe there's really anything at stake, and instead think of space exploration as a very expensive nerd hobby with some possible military applications.
    - jcoffland 10y ago
      And ironically those same people believe their silly little political games on earth are what's really important.
  - smileysteve 10y ago
    Yes! This is the concept between ISS! The idea that we are regularly sharing launch missions is a great work for international diplomacy.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > Yes! This is the concept between ISS! Sort of. China is banned by the US government from participating in the ISS (or any other cooperation with NASA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NA...
      - logfromblammo 10y ago
        All space tech is necessarily dual-use military. I'm certain the concern is that space launch cooperation with PR China will result in unintentional transfer of militarily relevant technologies. Also, China is responsible for the largest single space debris generating event in history, from the intentional destruction of Fengyun-1C in 2007. That kind of thing doesn't matter to the politicians so much, but it was kind of a dick move, and had all the appearances of gratuitous saber-rattling. Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO when it is already perilously close to Kessler cascade.
- mhurron 10y ago
  If it wasn't for the national dick waving contest that we call space exploration, it wouldn't matter that NASA isn't from the nation running a vehicle project. But out of everything that NASA does what gets attention? The fact that it's not the nation sending rockets up. Why? Because it's not about exploration and expanding knowledge, it's about dick waving. I laugh at all this talk about going to Mars to save the human race. We're just going to show up, if we get there at all, and fuck it up just as hard as we have on Earth. We're a species of idiotic assholes.
  - BFatts 10y ago
    Well I guess we won't be sending you then.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    I think you are being too harsh. If all the humans had all the information available all the time and not dependent on their community then it would be just a matter of character. Humans are humans - and at least currently it appears we learn and improve all the time.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  Well, you could look at it that way. Or you could also look at it like this: the Chinese have made it to the early-70s "Skylab" stage (minus the Apollo program that came before it), the Russians are content to stick with 1990s Soyuz/Mir/early ISS technology and their orbital shots. NASA has little to show of their manned space program since the shuttle retired in 2011, but still leads the world in robotic exploration of the solar system. Hardly as dire a situation as you paint.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Shivetya 10y ago
  Russia and China can continue to push their space program with its costs simply because their societies are not geared around hand outs and pandering for the votes of those seeking hand outs. Space is portrayed as having been there, done that. Worse, there are some trying to portray it as a rich man's place with the advent of space tourism and thus not a place government should be except to regulate it. With regards to NASA, the shuttles, and such. Losing the shuttle was probably the best thing to happen to NASA long term. In the short term it wasn't and not because of the decision but because the management is so dysfunctional they don't know what they need. They have enough wants to fill a Sears Christmas catalog but none spark the imagination of the public and as such get little support. They need a good spokesman, a long term goal, and some flashy steps that are achieved along the way to keep people interested and thereby keeping the funding alive. I would love to see a permanent moon settlement for more than just a few astronauts, more like a few dozen. Tie it in eventually with private trips to help keep it up and expanding...
505 10y ago
Are the docks compatible with Soyuz?
- miaoever 10y ago
  no.
  - manarth 10y ago
    It sounds like there are mixed opinions on that - the Chinese docking system is reportedly a clone of the Russian APAS-89/APAS-95 docking system (which is also in use on the ISS). So it's possible, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer at the moment.
    - chiph 10y ago
      I would have thought there would have been a technology transfer amongst the spacefaring nations, so that just in case they could dock with each other.
      - manarth 10y ago
        That's basically the history of the APAS docking system [1], which was co-developed by American and Soviet engineers. So why isn't it universal? As usual, XKCD has a compelling explanation: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_...
      - chillacy 10y ago
        Also, China was apparently banned from the ISS in 1999 in order to prevent technology transfer.
- Nokinside 10y ago
  Chinese reportedly use APAS-89/APAS-95 system docking adapters (jointly developed by Americans and Russians) so they be able to dock with currently used Soyuz spacecraft in principle. They should also be legacy compatible with new International Docking System Standard (IDSS). Emphasis on principle. Until they confirm that their intent is to be compatible and some testing is done to verify it, I don't think anyone wants to dock.
vinchuco 10y ago
Initially read this as "US astronauts enter China's space station". That would have been interesting.
- freyfogle 10y ago
  Valid confusion. Correct headline would be "Taikonauts enter China's space station" Cosmonauts = Russian Taikonauts = Chinese Astronauts = Western
  - lmm 10y ago
    Can we stop this? It's the modern-day version of the victorian collective noun parlour game, and just as stupid.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      Then we should stop using the inaccurate "astronaut" and call them all cosmonauts.
      - informatimago 10y ago
        Well, then don't navigate the astres, the cosmos or the stars. They only circumnavigate Earth and a few went just so far as Earth's Moon. Let's call them Earth orbitonauts. :-)
      - Hondor 10y ago
        Astronaut is the original English word. Cosmonaut is a transliteration from the Russian word for astronaut. So if we're speaking English, we should use astronaut regardless of the country they're from. Otherwise we're forced to invent silly new words that nobody understands like taikonaut and what will we call Indian astronauts or whoever's next? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Terminology
        kuschku 10y ago
grecy 10y ago
I think it's fantastic to see another country having the ability to send humans into orbit. Currently there are only two - Russia and China - so it's great we can all live vicariously through their achievements!
dbosch 10y ago
they are not "astronauts", but taïkonauts. The chinese term for going into space. Astronauts are for US. Cosmonauts for Russians. and Spationauts for Europeans.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  They are astronauts. Your definitions are off https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/astronaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/astronaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cosmonaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cosmonaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/taikonaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/taikonaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astronaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astronaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmonaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmonaut [ Merriam-Webster doesn't define Taïkonaut ]
  - dbosch 10y ago
    Actually, the Russian call their space people "Cosmonauts". "Astronaut" has been chosen by NASA, while the USSR chose "Cosmonaut". But you're right regarding the chinese. They are not called Taikonaut in their own country. But neither "astronaut". link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut Check the terminology section. I just wanted to highligth that only NASA (or English speaker world) call their astronaut "astronaut". In europe, we call them spationauts. And in russia, they call them "cosmonauts".
    - wodenokoto 10y ago
      The Russian calls lots of things differently than the Americans do. Also, nobody in Denmark says spationaut. We say Astronaut, so not all of Europe and not only English speakers.
      - dbosch 10y ago
        I do hear you, buddy. I'm french, and I do say "Astronaut" when I speaking about space. I'm just stating that in newspaper (not always), they say "spationaut". It's just how it's supposed to be said. But not everyone is following this. And it's ok. I was just highlighting the fact that there is a different name for people going to space regarding the country they are from. That's all. But yeah, the american word it has probably won in the popular culture and in the day-to-day language. Sorry. I didn't want to sound like Mr. know it all.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Aren't Chinese space travelers called Taikonauts? The title make it sounds like Americans are invading China's space station.
- JTon 10y ago
  After a quick google, I believe you are correct. The term doesn't seem to be very well known outside of space circles, though. Maybe that's why the BBC opted for the familiar.
- leojg 10y ago
  I think so... anyways I find stupid the need to differentiate the "space worker(?)" by country of origin. They all do the same awesome thing.
  - T-zex 10y ago
    "Chinese space workers enter space camp"
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The Russians invented the job, yet us Americans decided to go with Astronaut rather than Cosmonaut.
    - rakoo 10y ago
      And we French people wanted to go with our American friends but didn't want to anger the Russian giant... so we went with our own "spationaute"
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Nokinside 10y ago
  Taikonaut is the word sometimes used for Chinese astronauts in English language journals and Taiwan and Hong Kong. It's mix of Mandarin and Greek (naut = sailor in Greek). Chinese call their astronauts hang tian yuan.Indian astronauts will be vyomanauts. Astronaut is still valid name for crew member of a spacecraft in any nation.

199 points by ehxor 10y ago

China has now done 6 crewed missions to space in the last 3 years. In that time, Russia has had 13 manned missions many of which NASA astronauts have hitched a ride on. NASA is still on the ground since discontinuing the shuttle program in 2011.

djaychela 10y ago
True, but is it not the case that NASA is focused beyond the level that's being achieved by the Chinese? I appreciate that the sls has its detractors (I'm from the UK so I don't think I have the same internal political perspective that a US commenter might), but aside from that the US government appears to have helped create a nascent private space industry that will yield real fruit in terms of both leo capacity and also beyond in the future?
- jcoffland 10y ago
  My statements above were neutral but yes I do think that the US and the western world in general are falling behind. What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Privatization of the US space industry is interesting but has yet to prove itself. No private institution has achieved manned orbit.
  - stickfigure 10y ago
    No private institution has achieved manned orbit. That's because manned orbit is motivated by prestige, not rational economic behavior.
    - tellarin 10y ago
      Research (especially pure research) and innovation are many times initially incompatible with rational economic behaviour.
    - 505 10y ago
      Can't perceptions of prestige help actors make market choices?
    - ballooney 10y ago
      Not really, there are commercial agreements in place between both SpaceX and Boeing, and Nasa, as part of its Commercial Crew Programme. The current estimates are that they will not launch until 2018, three years behind the original schedule: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/01/nasa-oig-report-delays-commercial-crews-payments-russians/ http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/01/nasa-oig-report-delay... I also have customers who have been sold slots for their satellites on Falcon Heavy which is now 4 years behind schedule (the first demo flight was originally meant to be 2012, with the first commercial flight in 2013, as yet nothing has flown, with the current estimate being 2017). It's frustrating for these customers. I point this out here just because HN can have too many credulous website designers saying [to the effect of] 'No but Elon will be on Mars in 10 years so we should just fund private companies' and the reality for everyone in the industry is somewhat different. The Indian Government is currently about the cheapest and most reliable commercial satellite launcher in the world with its PSLV vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle
      - avar 10y ago
        Countering "there's no economic reason to put humans into orbit" with "but look at these commercial programs 100% paid by the government" isn't really a rebuke, you're just making the OPs point for them. It's only commercial in the sense that say there's say commercial manufacturing of ballistic missile submarines. It's just an implementation detail of how the US (v.s. say China) does manufacturing for purely state-sponsored projects, not something indicating that there's an economic incentive to put people into orbit outside of government sponsored programs.
        kobeya 10y ago
        They (SpaceX at least) are not 100% funded by the government.
        avar 10y ago
        And to the extent that SpaceX isn't funded by the government they have no plans to put people into orbit as a goal in itself, only as a staging area for launching to Mars. So how is any of this a counterargument to stickfigure's "manned orbit is motivated by prestige, not rational economic behavior"?
    - ChoHag 10y ago
      Research is irrational?
      - anc84 10y ago
        If personal, economical gain is your goal, yes.
        manarth 10y ago
        R&D is a rational choice for many companies, and their motivation is generally economic rather than altruistic.
        ChoHag 10y ago
        Personal, econonical gain can suck my dick. I can think of hardly anything that's less important.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Would you mind moderating your language a bit?
        sctb 10y ago
        When we ask users repeatedly to comment civilly and substantively and they don't, we have to ban them. We've done so here.
    - jcoffland 10y ago
      That's one way to look at it. The other is that a commercial enterprise will not do something in the name of science if it does not make a buck.
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    In my opinion, cooperation in space is one of the reasons that US/Russian relations haven't broken down already...
  - madaxe_again 10y ago
    Dude, we were already behind. The only significant US first in space was the lunar landing - the USSR thrashed the US with everything from Sputnik to venera to Gagarin to salyut. The only difference is that you now have a window out of your propaganda bubble. There's a reason that Chinese space progress is barely reported, if at all, in the west. It's embarrassing, and doesn't tie in with the deluded "west is best" worldview.
    - throwaway123098 10y ago
      But we were not _really_ behind. We were about a year behind (if not less), and much was due to other American advantages: we didn't need huge rockets (which would launch humans into space) since American nuclear bombs were smaller. The reason we don't hear much about China is because that don't do much: Launch a man into space once a year? Land a rover on the Moon? That's 1960s news. If it would be more serious, there would be a "Sputnik scare" like in the 60s, not silence
      - ChoHag 10y ago
        > But we were not _really_ behind. We should keep telling ourselves that. It may also help us convince ourselves that our arsehole is indeed the best place for our head to be.
        throwaway123098 10y ago
        Also, Explorer 1 had scientific payload (which discovered the Van-Allen belts), unlike Sputnik
        ChoHag 10y ago
        You keep that masturbation going! You'll convince yourself everything's OK by the end.
        madaxe_again 10y ago
        Sputnik was the science payload - at that point the US were still saying it'd be years until orbit was reached. Ironically, had it not been for the space race, we might have a more mature space program now, rather than one largely based on 1940s technology and engineering. They rushed to production and massively invested in a single model on both sides, rather than exploring options fully before commencing - similar applies to nuclear technology, insofar as thorium would have been the better tech, but was too late to the party to gain traction, never mind the weapon byproduct bit.
  - throwaway123098 10y ago
    The Western world isn't falling behind. It's just not so push-over ahead. What China is doing right now, the USSR did in the 1960s, and the US did in the 70s (it had a ten year detour to go to the moon first). While NASA hasn't done anything innovative in manned space-flight since 1980 (sunk costs, politics, no _real_ need, etc), they've done crazy work with unmanned spacecraft. Think landing a _car_ on Mars (and then driving it around), launching routine missions to outer planets (and beyond!), being the only agency to get a probe out of the solar system. Honestly, if Congress ever feels it necessary to launch someone to the Moon, they'll get it done in less than a decade.
    - 505 10y ago
      And 'driving it around' is not as simple as it might sound, due to the time taken for commands to travel 4 light-minutes (minimum, and almost always a lot more). Feedback similarly.
  - avar 10y ago
    > What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Isn't it literally the case that if the US wanted to send people into space on their own hardware they could do it with months of lead time with the Falcon 9, Delta IV etc.? Those rockets aren't "human rated", but are they (particularly the Delta IV) any less safe then the Soyuz or Chinese rockets? I.e. this seems more of a "we have some rockets, but it's cheaper to launch with the Russians" rather than "we can't do it" problem to me.
    - tjohns 10y ago
      We can launch things to space, yes. But we don't have any vehicles that have life support, abort, or re-entry capabilities. It would be a short, one-way trip. So no, we really can't send anyone to space right now. And the Soyuz is actually pretty safe, relatively speaking. Aside from two notable failures early on, Soyuz hasn't had a fatality in 27 years.
      - lmm 10y ago
        We launched an Orion into orbit on top of a Delta IV, no? We could do that again and put people in if we were willing to accept the risk.
        thatsso1999 10y ago
        Orion has been launched once, on a short 4-hour test flight, during which it only orbited the Earth twice. That spacecraft is very, very different than the Orion that is scheduled to launch with humans inside in 2023. It's not a matter of being "willing to accept the risk" - it's just impossible. Safety is one of NASA's highest priorities, (if not the highest, especially after Columbia), so even considering doing such a thing would be unthinkable and is a non-starter. Even if you manage to somehow sidestep decades of a deeply ingrained culture of safety, it's just not even a possibility right now - significant portions of the spacecraft's design have yet to be finalized, and then you have to figure out how to manufacture it, and once you've actually manufactured it, it goes through several rounds of insane amounts of testing and revision before getting anywhere near the launchpad. Spaceflight is incredibly complex - even if NASA somehow managed to get a blank check (like it did during the early space race) there is still a very significant amount of work to be done that takes a very long time, no matter how much money you throw at it.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Having people in space is kind of pointless right now. Yes, it's a low G environment, but ISS is in such a low orbit that people in my state can be further from me than an overhead ISS 'Astronauts'. It's even protected by earths magnetic field making it a poor test of long term space flight.
    - dTal 10y ago
      I won't take a strong position on the larger point of whether humans in space are worth it, but there are other uses for a space station than "being far away", "being low g", and "seeing how many astronauts get cancer".
    - rtkwe 10y ago
      Absolutely wrong. Having a manned station is a boon for the research taking place. Without a station anyone wanting to do research like the packed bed or the docking and refueling experiments would require the investigating institution to design and launch a vastly more complicated automated satellite or to rely on short manned missions that would have more competition for space and time. Instead it's much easier to package an experiment and send it to the station which has a lot of equipment to support experiments and humans that can troubleshoot and modify experiments. As for studying long term space flight the only thing it really doesn't provide a model for is radiation which we can model on the ground pretty well. You still get the other health impacts from microgravity that we're still trying to figure out how to effectively combat.
      - Retric 10y ago
        ISS cost ~200 billion, saying we can't do the same research for less is kind of a high hurdle when it's close enough for minimal lag, nobody tried, and people need a lot of ridiculously expensive consumables.
        rtkwe 10y ago
        The lag isn't the hurdle it's making the robotics on the satellite to run the experiment. The closest analog is probably the robot that's used to service the JET reactor at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy [0]. With a station for some types of failures with experiments an astronaut can work around or heavily reconfigure the equipment to still get good data. Without a person up there every experiment launch would have to either just accept failures and write off the whole thing or include whatever system we're talking about that would replace the repair and reconfigure ability of people. Instead the various governments front the cost of having a person in space and it's way easier and cheaper for companies to package and run their experiments. It's a subsidy that opens up the ability to do microG science more easily. Also there's no good alternative way to study the long term microG effects on humans other than a station since you need both space for people to live for up to a year and space for the various experiments on how to combat the deterioration that happens. Having a station up there also teaches us how to work and repair things in space and how things break when they've been running for 15+ years. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtGp8hv-0Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtGp8hv-0Y
  - Eerie 10y ago
    >What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Russia loses the ISS, because it can't be maintained without USA ground facilities. Essentially, it will be the end of Russian manned space flight, until they build themselves a new space station.
yitchelle 10y ago
With so much at stake, is it possible for all nations to play together and strive for the better good when it comes to space exploration?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Only in movies. A lot of people (including poliicians deciding about treaties and budgets) do not believe there's really anything at stake, and instead think of space exploration as a very expensive nerd hobby with some possible military applications.
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    And ironically those same people believe their silly little political games on earth are what's really important.
- smileysteve 10y ago
  Yes! This is the concept between ISS! The idea that we are regularly sharing launch missions is a great work for international diplomacy.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > Yes! This is the concept between ISS! Sort of. China is banned by the US government from participating in the ISS (or any other cooperation with NASA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NA...
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      All space tech is necessarily dual-use military. I'm certain the concern is that space launch cooperation with PR China will result in unintentional transfer of militarily relevant technologies. Also, China is responsible for the largest single space debris generating event in history, from the intentional destruction of Fengyun-1C in 2007. That kind of thing doesn't matter to the politicians so much, but it was kind of a dick move, and had all the appearances of gratuitous saber-rattling. Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO when it is already perilously close to Kessler cascade.
mhurron 10y ago
If it wasn't for the national dick waving contest that we call space exploration, it wouldn't matter that NASA isn't from the nation running a vehicle project. But out of everything that NASA does what gets attention? The fact that it's not the nation sending rockets up. Why? Because it's not about exploration and expanding knowledge, it's about dick waving. I laugh at all this talk about going to Mars to save the human race. We're just going to show up, if we get there at all, and fuck it up just as hard as we have on Earth. We're a species of idiotic assholes.
- BFatts 10y ago
  Well I guess we won't be sending you then.
- fsloth 10y ago
  I think you are being too harsh. If all the humans had all the information available all the time and not dependent on their community then it would be just a matter of character. Humans are humans - and at least currently it appears we learn and improve all the time.
MrZongle2 10y ago
Well, you could look at it that way. Or you could also look at it like this: the Chinese have made it to the early-70s "Skylab" stage (minus the Apollo program that came before it), the Russians are content to stick with 1990s Soyuz/Mir/early ISS technology and their orbital shots. NASA has little to show of their manned space program since the shuttle retired in 2011, but still leads the world in robotic exploration of the solar system. Hardly as dire a situation as you paint.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 10y ago
Russia and China can continue to push their space program with its costs simply because their societies are not geared around hand outs and pandering for the votes of those seeking hand outs. Space is portrayed as having been there, done that. Worse, there are some trying to portray it as a rich man's place with the advent of space tourism and thus not a place government should be except to regulate it. With regards to NASA, the shuttles, and such. Losing the shuttle was probably the best thing to happen to NASA long term. In the short term it wasn't and not because of the decision but because the management is so dysfunctional they don't know what they need. They have enough wants to fill a Sears Christmas catalog but none spark the imagination of the public and as such get little support. They need a good spokesman, a long term goal, and some flashy steps that are achieved along the way to keep people interested and thereby keeping the funding alive. I would love to see a permanent moon settlement for more than just a few astronauts, more like a few dozen. Tie it in eventually with private trips to help keep it up and expanding...

505 10y ago

Are the docks compatible with Soyuz?

miaoever 10y ago
no.
- manarth 10y ago
  It sounds like there are mixed opinions on that - the Chinese docking system is reportedly a clone of the Russian APAS-89/APAS-95 docking system (which is also in use on the ISS). So it's possible, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer at the moment.
  - chiph 10y ago
    I would have thought there would have been a technology transfer amongst the spacefaring nations, so that just in case they could dock with each other.
    - manarth 10y ago
      That's basically the history of the APAS docking system [1], which was co-developed by American and Soviet engineers. So why isn't it universal? As usual, XKCD has a compelling explanation: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_...
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Also, China was apparently banned from the ISS in 1999 in order to prevent technology transfer.
Nokinside 10y ago
Chinese reportedly use APAS-89/APAS-95 system docking adapters (jointly developed by Americans and Russians) so they be able to dock with currently used Soyuz spacecraft in principle. They should also be legacy compatible with new International Docking System Standard (IDSS). Emphasis on principle. Until they confirm that their intent is to be compatible and some testing is done to verify it, I don't think anyone wants to dock.

vinchuco 10y ago

Initially read this as "US astronauts enter China's space station". That would have been interesting.

freyfogle 10y ago
Valid confusion. Correct headline would be "Taikonauts enter China's space station" Cosmonauts = Russian Taikonauts = Chinese Astronauts = Western
- lmm 10y ago
  Can we stop this? It's the modern-day version of the victorian collective noun parlour game, and just as stupid.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    Then we should stop using the inaccurate "astronaut" and call them all cosmonauts.
    - informatimago 10y ago
      Well, then don't navigate the astres, the cosmos or the stars. They only circumnavigate Earth and a few went just so far as Earth's Moon. Let's call them Earth orbitonauts. :-)
    - Hondor 10y ago
      Astronaut is the original English word. Cosmonaut is a transliteration from the Russian word for astronaut. So if we're speaking English, we should use astronaut regardless of the country they're from. Otherwise we're forced to invent silly new words that nobody understands like taikonaut and what will we call Indian astronauts or whoever's next? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Terminology
      - kuschku 10y ago

grecy 10y ago

I think it's fantastic to see another country having the ability to send humans into orbit. Currently there are only two - Russia and China - so it's great we can all live vicariously through their achievements!

dbosch 10y ago

they are not "astronauts", but taïkonauts. The chinese term for going into space. Astronauts are for US. Cosmonauts for Russians. and Spationauts for Europeans.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
They are astronauts. Your definitions are off https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/astronaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/astronaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cosmonaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cosmonaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/taikonaut https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/taikonaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astronaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astronaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmonaut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmonaut [ Merriam-Webster doesn't define Taïkonaut ]
- dbosch 10y ago
  Actually, the Russian call their space people "Cosmonauts". "Astronaut" has been chosen by NASA, while the USSR chose "Cosmonaut". But you're right regarding the chinese. They are not called Taikonaut in their own country. But neither "astronaut". link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut Check the terminology section. I just wanted to highligth that only NASA (or English speaker world) call their astronaut "astronaut". In europe, we call them spationauts. And in russia, they call them "cosmonauts".
  - wodenokoto 10y ago
    The Russian calls lots of things differently than the Americans do. Also, nobody in Denmark says spationaut. We say Astronaut, so not all of Europe and not only English speakers.
    - dbosch 10y ago
      I do hear you, buddy. I'm french, and I do say "Astronaut" when I speaking about space. I'm just stating that in newspaper (not always), they say "spationaut". It's just how it's supposed to be said. But not everyone is following this. And it's ok. I was just highlighting the fact that there is a different name for people going to space regarding the country they are from. That's all. But yeah, the american word it has probably won in the popular culture and in the day-to-day language. Sorry. I didn't want to sound like Mr. know it all.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

Aren't Chinese space travelers called Taikonauts? The title make it sounds like Americans are invading China's space station.

JTon 10y ago
After a quick google, I believe you are correct. The term doesn't seem to be very well known outside of space circles, though. Maybe that's why the BBC opted for the familiar.
leojg 10y ago
I think so... anyways I find stupid the need to differentiate the "space worker(?)" by country of origin. They all do the same awesome thing.
- T-zex 10y ago
  "Chinese space workers enter space camp"
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  The Russians invented the job, yet us Americans decided to go with Astronaut rather than Cosmonaut.
  - rakoo 10y ago
    And we French people wanted to go with our American friends but didn't want to anger the Russian giant... so we went with our own "spationaute"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Nokinside 10y ago
Taikonaut is the word sometimes used for Chinese astronauts in English language journals and Taiwan and Hong Kong. It's mix of Mandarin and Greek (naut = sailor in Greek). Chinese call their astronauts hang tian yuan.Indian astronauts will be vyomanauts. Astronaut is still valid name for crew member of a spacecraft in any nation.