My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.

"si" writes:


Well, they haven't launched anything yet. Let alone cool stuff. 'Second
place'? Surely, it's an exaggeration. Understandable excitement. Japan
has launched more cool stuff than China. The status of it being 'manned' or
not, makes no difference in this day and age.

Sure they have. They've launched four copies of their manned
vehicle. They just happened to be unmanned because they're test
flights and you naturally don't want to put people on these first
flights.


One can look at how much they can do now as opposed to how much they did
during the last 40 years.

True, but it has nothing to do with their global standing. They did almost
nothing in space in the past 40 years. They are about to do *something*
now. They *might* do a lot more in the future. How does this establish
ranking relative to other nations' efforts?

Really? You must be thinking about some other Chinese space program.
Seriously, you might try reading up on what they've actually done
instead of assuming they haven't done anything just because typical
western media outlets don't think the masses are interested in such
things. Here's a decent place to start:

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/china/

For example, they've been launching high resolution photo
reconnaissance satellites since 1975. They were the third nation to
launch such a satellite. Guess who launched the other two?

Just because you don't know what China has been doing in space doesn't
diminish their accomplishments.

True, that. But even if reliable figures were readily available - *there
is simply no track record to base these predictions or calculations on*

Actually there are. The manned launch vehicle is based on an existing
expendable launch vehicle that has a demonstrated track record. What
you can't predict is how much safer the manned version will be.
Changes were made to increase reliability, just as the US and Russia
did with their early, missile derived, manned launch vehicles.

Frankly, it appears as if I'm overly critical of the article, but I actually
found its first, the technical part, very informative (didn't know they'd
built a tracking station in Africa). It's the later, analytical part...
Any serious analysis of where the program is, or will be, should be
postponed for later. Much later. 10 manned flights (successful or not)
would be good for a start.

One manned flight is a milestone. They will be only the third nation
to accomplish this feat. Other than Russia and the US, no other
country seems to be seriously pursuing this goal.

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

(Ben Klooterman) writes:

Not that cheap .. a lead engineer with a foreign degree ( often PhD)
and 5+ years experience would get 7-10K RMB per month or $10,000
-$15,000 US per year. A normal engineer half that and an unskilled
labourer gets $1-1.6K per year.

Still, that's far less than what the same person would be paid in the
US. I'd think that you could get 5x that salary in the US. I'd call
the Chinese salaries cheap by comparison.

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

In sci.space.policy Manfred Bartz wrote:
jeff findley writes:

"Dholmes" writes:

A very interesting article that provides a good look at the
Chinese program. Both the Chinese and the Russians show what
can be do on a tight budget if you keep it simple.

And if you have cheap workers.

Comparing $ is completely meaningless.

A much more useful comparison would be based on how much of a
particular resource a country allocates for a certain program.

F.e. if you have X "engineer years" what proportion of that is
allocated to the space program? Of course those figures are a
bit harder to come by.


So what happens to San Mariono and its only engineer allocated to
space? 8-P

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

si schreef in berichtnieuws
...
"Mike Rhino" wrote in message
...


One can look at how much they can do now as opposed to how much they did
during the last 40 years.




True, but it has nothing to do with their global standing. They did
almost
nothing in space in the past 40 years. They are about to do *something*
now. They *might* do a lot more in the future. How does this establish
ranking relative to other nations' efforts?


I wonder how the 'man-rating' of their booster will affect the perception of
the quality of the same or similar boosters used for satellite-launching.
Would this affect the decisions of clientsor insurance companies? (Of
cource, the _actual succes rate will also affect said decisions, but only
after a track record has been established.)


Filip De Vos

Pat Flannery schreef in berichtnieuws
...


dinges wrote:

Euhm, the S.I. unit for thrust is the Newton...

Filip De Vos




Shsss! The Chinese may hear you...Jim is trying to lure them into
building a Mars orbiter the NASA way!

Maybe we can 'invite' them to the ISS! :-)

I recall some extensive discussions had to take place about the sizes (and
units of racks, bolts as well as other standards.

Filip De Vos

dinges wrote:



Maybe we can 'invite' them to the ISS! :-)

They'll run the Shenzhou into it, as it might be doing recon work;
actually they are supposed to launch a orbiting nuclear bomb platform.
Then the crew of Earth 2...er, Space Station Alpha...will have to disarm it.


I recall some extensive discussions had to take place about the sizes (and
units of racks, bolts as well as other standards.


Such as if the tourists get the New York Times or Pravda with their
continental breakfast.

Pat

In article ,
dinges wrote:
Thinking further along these lines, have the Chinese signed the Outer Space
Treaty or the Moon Treaty? If they haven't, they can claim territory...

If I recall correctly, they have (like just about everyone else) signed
the Outer Space Treaty, which renounces territorial claims. They have
ignored the Moon Treaty (also like just about everyone else).
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

Henry Spencer wrote:
If I recall correctly, they have (like just about everyone else)
signed the Outer Space Treaty, which renounces territorial claims.
They have ignored the Moon Treaty (also like just about everyone
else).

I thought the Moon Treaty was never ratified in the US, thanks to the
lobbying of the L5 society. And that it was never binding on other
countries unless the US signed it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

In article ,
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
They have ignored the Moon Treaty (also like just about everyone
else).

I thought the Moon Treaty was never ratified in the US, thanks to the
lobbying of the L5 society.

Essentially correct. (Technically it was not the L5 Society itself, but
a closely-affiliated-but-non-tax-exempt organization. Really closely
affiliated. Really really closely affiliated. :-)) The President signed
it but the Senate never ratified it.

And that it was never binding on other countries unless the US signed it.

No, it came into effect as soon as a minimum number of countries ratified
it, which happened fairly early. None of the countries in question are
spacefaring nations, so this was all fairly academic.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |