Shenzhou has landed

CCTV is reporting that the reentry capsule has landed. Helicopters are on
the way.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:37:09 -0400, Rick DeNatale wrote:

CCTV has since reported first that the reentry module was intact and now
that the Chinese president has telephoned Yang Liwei to congratulate him
on a successful mission.

Also more at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shenzhou/status.html

Wonderful! Just 4.8 km away from the target area.

"Rick DeNatale" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:37:09 -0400, Rick DeNatale wrote:

CCTV has since reported first that the reentry module was intact and now
that the Chinese president has telephoned Yang Liwei to congratulate him
on a successful mission.

Also more at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shenzhou/status.html

Skynet wrote:

Wonderful! Just 4.8 km away from the target area.

This doesn't exactly make one terrified of their ICBM's, does it?

Pat

In message , Pat Flannery
writes


Skynet wrote:

Wonderful! Just 4.8 km away from the target area.

This doesn't exactly make one terrified of their ICBM's, does it?

Last I heard, ICBMs don't make 20-odd orbits, fire retro-rockets, and
land gently enough for an occupant to climb out.
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Wonderful! Just 4.8 km away from the target area.

This doesn't exactly make one terrified of their ICBM's, does it?

Depends on how much of that error was things like high-altitude winds
(which a high-ballistic-coefficient warhead RV is much less affected by).
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


Last I heard, ICBMs don't make 20-odd orbits,

I thought it was 14 orbits.

fire retro-rockets, and land gently enough for an occupant to climb out.


No but it does give some idea of their guidance capabilities...and the
more I thought about that, the more it seems to point to the idea that
if they ever do get in a nuclear war with us, they are going to target
cities, and use whopping high yield warheads to make up for any
targeting errors- which given the low number of ICBMs they have is
somewhat encouraging; as any such attack would leave our ICBM force
largely intact, and result in China being turned into something
resembling a charcoal grill around half-an-hour later...so apparently
they intend to use their ICBM force largely as a deterrent against a
nuclear first strike on China; and not as a weapon for a first strike by
China itself.

Pat

Henry Spencer wrote:

Depends on how much of that error was things like high-altitude winds
(which a high-ballistic-coefficient warhead RV is much less affected by).


Does anyone know if Shenzhou used a Soyuz-style lifting reentry profile?
And what the average CEP of a Soyuz landing has proved to be?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Does anyone know if Shenzhou used a Soyuz-style lifting reentry
profile? And what the average CEP of a Soyuz landing has proved to be?

Pat

Out of curiosity, I looked up what is known regarding the CEP of
operational Chinese ICBMs; data varies, but tends to indicate an
estimated CEP of between 500-3,500 meters for the operational Dong Feng
5 ICBM with a single 2 Mt warhead (they may be MIRVing these) at 500
meters you may be able to destroy a Minuteman silo with a warhead that
big; but not at anywhere near 3,500 meters.
The new Dong Feng 31 ICBM is estimated to have a CEP of between 300-500
meters, and warhead yields seem none too sure in it's single or triple
warheaded versions.
This data is from he
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/icbm.htm
What is surprising is the tiny size of China's ICBM force compared to
either the U.S. or Russia's- China has only 24 Dong Feng 5's deployed-
we topped out a 1000 Minutemans and 54 Titan II's IIRC (and 550 of those
Minutemen had triple warheads on them.) for a grand total of 2,154
warheads; the Soviets had 1,398 ICBM's as of 1983 with 5,678 warheads
total.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

as any such attack would leave our ICBM force
largely intact, and result in China being turned into something
resembling a charcoal grill around half-an-hour later...so apparently
they intend to use their ICBM force largely as a deterrent against a
nuclear first strike on China; and not as a weapon for a first strike by
China itself.

Which gives weight to the argument that M.A.D. still works, at least
against countries lacking credible missile defense. The "rogue
nation" argument for missile defense is controversial at best, as the
"rogue nation" would likewise be reduced to smoldering rubble within
the hour.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.