Chinese spacecraft

The Chinese deserve congratulations in their superb making good on the
goal to become spacefarers. A note or two about the vehicle. Rather
than starting from scratch with a Vostok or Mercury type design, the
Chinese began with a basic copy of Soyuz, and not Apollo. Certainly no
need to reinvent the sophistication of a proven space vehicle, but I
find it interesting to see this nation begin with an enduring design. I
wonder if the Russians sold them the plans or did the Chinese figure it
out on their own? Were the vehicle support systems purchased or built
from scratch? How will the spacecraft evole, or will it? Does the
Shenzhou have the manuvering systems of Soyuz, or the ballistic path of
Vostok? Why not the Gemini design? Will one Shenzhou design take them
to the moon?

Will the Chinese efforts to expand beyond LEO by slow increments give
the US Congress the boot in the ass it needs to get serious about
returning to the moon? Will this stimulate new Russian development of
deep space technology?

RDG writes:

The Chinese deserve congratulations in their superb making good on the
goal to become spacefarers. A note or two about the vehicle. Rather
than starting from scratch with a Vostok or Mercury type design, the
Chinese began with a basic copy of Soyuz, and not Apollo. Certainly no
need to reinvent the sophistication of a proven space vehicle, but I
find it interesting to see this nation begin with an enduring design. I
wonder if the Russians sold them the plans or did the Chinese figure it
out on their own?

The Russians sold a (1, one) Soyuz capsule and a few other items to them.
Shenzhou is *not* identical to Soyuz, by the way. It has more powerful
engines, more electric power, the capsule is larger, the orbital module
is capable of flying a mission on its own, and so on.

Were the vehicle support systems purchased or built from scratch?

The latter, as far as I know.

How will the spacecraft evole, or will it? Does the Shenzhou have the
manuvering systems of Soyuz, or the ballistic path of Vostok? Why not
the Gemini design? Will one Shenzhou design take them to the moon?

You're asking a damn lot of questions ;-) Look at
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/shefacts.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/shelunar.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/chirbase.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/chiatory.htm
for a few answers.

Will the Chinese efforts to expand beyond LEO by slow increments give
the US Congress the boot in the ass it needs to get serious about
returning to the moon?

I don't think these efforts will have any obvious impact at US
spaceflight. Not now at least. I *could* imagine that China in space
will make any decision to give up manned spaceflight at all much harder,
though...

Will this stimulate new Russian development of deep space technology?

Russia doesn't lack stimulation. Russia lacks money. And China won't
give them any.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

RDG writes:

Rather than starting from scratch with a Vostok or Mercury type
design, the Chinese began with a basic copy of Soyuz, and not Apollo.

Oh, and read that for a discussion if Soyuz was actually a copy of an
early Apollo design by General Electrics (it wasn't, but the basic Soyuz
design is not that unique at all, it is quite a logical design):
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm



Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann writes:

Oh, and read that for a discussion if Soyuz was actually a copy of an
early Apollo design by General Electrics (it wasn't, but the basic Soyuz
design is not that unique at all, it is quite a logical design):
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm

It's a logical design only if you assume that you want to minimize the
size and weight of the re-entry capsule. This assumption implies that
the entire system not be reusable. After all, if you're throwing away
your propulsion module and your orbital research/living module, why
bother reusing only the re-entry capsule?

If you assume that you want a reusable system, I'd argue that this
approach makes little sense. It would be better to reuse the entire
system as one, large capsule than throw pieces away on every flight.

However, considering the pace of the Chinese program, reusable
vehicles don't make sense. They're still learning and will doubtless
make changes to their design as they learn. Also, their flight rate
is so low that reusable capsules wouldn't make much sense anyway.

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

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
RDG writes:

I
wonder if the Russians sold them the plans or did the Chinese figure it
out on their own? Were the vehicle support systems purchased or built
from scratch? How will the spacecraft evole, or will it? Does the
Shenzhou have the manuvering systems of Soyuz, or the ballistic path of
Vostok? Why not the Gemini design? Will one Shenzhou design take them
to the moon?

[snip]

The propulsion and orbital modules don't share the same similarities
to Soyuz. Specifically, the orbital module is far more advanced than
that on Soyuz. The Chinese orbital module is capable of independent
flight and is reported to be capable of supporting docking to a
subsequently launched Shenzhou. The Russian Soyuz module is capable
of none of this. It's discarded before re-entry and has no
capabilities to support independent flight.

Correct. The early General Electric proposal (for the USA Apollo program)
had a design (approach)
similar to the Soyuz and Shenzhou.
In many ways the Chinese have looked at all technologies and
taken the best (most practical) from all space programs (USA, Russian, ESA)
PLUS a few ideas that were never built - and current electronics / computer
technology - likely not yet flown by anyone.

If you view the Apollo Service, Command and Lunar modules as a stack --
they are not that much different (in purpose) than the Shenzhou.
IF you replace the Lunar module with the ASTP Docking module used in 1975 to
dock with the Soyuz -
you get an idea of the approach (without the capabilities in the Shenzhou
orbital module).

Did you notice similarities in the Shenzhou thrusters and Gemini ?

BTW .. in many ways the USA Gemini design was the best side-by-side cockpit
ever flown in space.

G. Beat

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:03:40 GMT, "G.Beat"
wrote:

BTW .. in many ways the USA Gemini design was the best side-by-side cockpit
ever flown in space.

....That it was. It's still an embarassment on the part of the military
for not having kept the design alive and in use, and even more the
justification for McNamara winding up buring for all eternity in Hell
when he finally - and hopefully painfully - kicks the bucket.

MOL should not only have flown, but should still be flying today with
a Blue Gemini on top.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:03:40 GMT, "G.Beat"
wrote:

BTW .. in many ways the USA Gemini design was the best side-by-side
cockpit
ever flown in space.

...That it was. It's still an embarassment on the part of the military
for not having kept the design alive and in use, and even more the
justification for McNamara winding up buring for all eternity in Hell
when he finally - and hopefully painfully - kicks the bucket.

MOL should not only have flown, but should still be flying today with
a Blue Gemini on top.


OM

Unfortunately the first 3 Gemini capsules were more toward Gus stature.
When Tom Stafford (who is 6 feet tall) had to fly for Gemini 6 ..
McDonnell had to change the seat and other aspects - for more room !

The Gemini NG / lifting body should use:

1.) Updated Gemini cockpit (and roomy enough for astronauts)
2.) Launchable on Delta 4 Heavy, Atlas 5 Heavy , Ariene 5 NG, Proton and
Long March NG with appropriate
adapters and changes
3.) Make alot of them (the next one is cheaper - once you spread the R&D
costs)
and be the only supplier for the cost point (because you think like WalMart)
4.) Take a project approach like Boeing did with 777 aircraft design for the
details.
5.) When in doubt -- go to Disney and the best space artists working with
aeronautical engineers
6.) Take aspects from the following classic vehicle designs (make it great
to look at)

- Boeing X-20 / Dyna-Soar (although a one-seater - modify)
Model at USAF museum - Dayton, Ohio
http://users.dbscorp.net/jmustain/x20.htm

- XRV lifting body (X-24A plus Lockheed additions)
On exhibit at Marshall Spaceflight museum (rescue vehicle in movie
Marooned)
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicl...aroonedTop.htm

- Icarus reentry vehicle from the movie Planet of the Apes
Model at Planet Hollywood - Orlando, Florida

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicl...PofAlarry.html


GB

In article , RDG wrote:
Will the Chinese efforts to expand beyond LEO by slow increments give
the US Congress the boot in the ass it needs to get serious about
returning to the moon?

The very existence of such efforts is pure supposition at this point.
(Yes, the Chinese have said they are interested in going to the Moon...
with about the same sort of vague, indefinite timetable that NASA has for
going back. It won't happen soon.)

Besides, there's no particular reason for Congress to get upset about such
a development. Folks, space is *not* *important* *any* *more*. Get used
to it. Deal with it. Stop fantasizing about bygone days*.



(* You'll notice I don't say "the good old days". Despite a few nice
features like Apollo, overall they weren't good. I remember when Toronto
used to test its air-raid sirens once a month, or thereabouts. I'm really
glad they stopped doing that. The tests only lasted a few seconds, but
they usually caught me by surprise, and my heart was usually pounding by
the time it became clear that the wail was dying down. That particular
sound was Not What You Wanted To Hear. People who look forward to a new
Cold War have no concept of what the old one was like.)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
If you assume that you want a reusable system, I'd argue that this
approach makes little sense. It would be better to reuse the entire
system as one, large capsule than throw pieces away on every flight.

Of course, you don't *have* to throw the orbital module away. Better than
taking your research/living quarters up and down every time is to just
leave them up there... and the Shenzhou orbital module is equipped for
that. Think of your spacecraft as an elevator cab, something that gets
you from point A to point B, not as a motor home that you camp in.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:55:11 GMT, "G.Beat"
wrote:

1.) Updated Gemini cockpit (and roomy enough for astronauts)

....With ejection couches by La-Z-Boy.

2.) Launchable on Delta 4 Heavy, Atlas 5 Heavy , Ariene 5 NG, Proton and
Long March NG with appropriate adapters and changes

....Which will spring up a junkyard cottage industry of entrepreneurs
coming up with novel ways tor recycle the unused adapters, because:

3.) Make alot of them (the next one is cheaper - once you spread the R&D
costs) and be the only supplier for the cost point (because you think like WalMart)

....And rest assured McD's would require that each one produced would
have to be produced with the complete set of adapters, which'll result
in the leftover parts. Think the Polar Lights TOS Enterprise kit with
all those extra version parts.

4.) Take a project approach like Boeing did with 777 aircraft design for the
details.

....And then run a public contest to name each spacecraft, with the
NASA PAO being totally left out of the loop to prevent great names
from being replaced with banal ones.

5.) When in doubt -- go to Disney and the best space artists working with
aeronautical engineers

....Are you kidding? Those greedy *******s are second only to
Lucasfilms in copyright protection scams! Get Disney involved, and
five years from now they'll claim they own all the rights to Gemini!

6.) Take aspects from the following classic vehicle designs (make it great
to look at)

....If Disney gets involved, it'll look like something that fell off
the Nautilus.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr