Chinese space program (Shenzhou, Tiangong-2, Long March 5 and more)

[nhnifong]

China has always been very effective when they want to do something, and they are fast learners. However they seldom entirely design their own technology. They copy others and put their own name on it. There should be a certain amount of shame in this to temper their industriousness.

[Kryten]

Russia had effectively no capability. Paper rocket designs are a dime a dozen, and mean nothing without the means to actually manufacture, previously flown design or not. There's a reason all of the projects you can mention are either in the far future or cancelled; they simply don't have the skills anymore. The engineers who built veneras and zonds are now retired or dead, they now effectively have to stay over; failure to recognise that killed Mars-96 and Phobos-grunt. Even angara is based on a scaled-down version of a thirty year old engine, and is years behind schedule.

[Frogbull]

Even angara is based on a scaled-down version of a thirty year old engine, and is years behind schedule.

Atlas V uses RD-180 engine (1999), it's not a thirty years old engine...

Why Americans prefer to use a Russian engine for Altas V first-stage ?

The Angara will used RD-191 engine (2001), it's not a thirty years old engine...

RD-191 and RD-180 are derived from the RD-170 originally used in the Energia, that's why you said "thirty years old engine" (26 years exactly) ?

Russians have to burn the plans cause they have made one of the best liquid-fuel rocket engine in the end of the 80's ?

Chinese have an equivalent ? I don't think so...

[Kryten]

RD-180 is just half of an RD-170, and RD-190 is just an RD-180 that's been halved again. That's 'innovative' to you?

[Good_Apollo]

I dunno why there's so much belligerence when it comes to this subject. Whatever your politics, China venturing into space is nothing but an advancement in space exploration and space technology for the human race. Goddamn sounds like the 1950s-80s in here.

[th3shameless]

sigh...can't we just be happy the chinese are making advances in their space program?

[Frogbull]

RD-180 is just half of an RD-170, and RD-190 is just an RD-180 that's been halved again. That's 'innovative' to you?

No, clearly not. This is an improvement of an existing technology; this is not revolutionary. But that "old" technology is still better than what the Chinese have at the moment.

The actual Long March rockets aren't better (but I waiting a lot about the Long March 5 performance), that all I said.

I dunno why there's so much belligerence when it comes to this subject. Whatever your politics, China venturing into space is nothing but an advancement in space exploration and space technology for the human race. Goddamn sounds like the 1950s-80s in here.

It's nice to compare arguments, the tone isn't the most friendly but respect is present.

sigh...can't we just be happy the chinese are making advances in their space program?

If there is confrontation it's mostly, in my opinion, because Kryten is, like me, very disappointed by the lack of Space innovations of the two giants (USA and Russia). There is a share of frustration that is expressed.

I think we'd all be happy if the Russia and/or the USA had been re-engaged in ambitious Space programs.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Frogbull

[tek_604]

That leaves ESA.

Just to quote myself, I remembered something yesterday. Its not quite ESA, but, DLR (German Space Agency) have/had an experiment on board of Tiangong-1. I don't know what it was, or what its current status is, as sadly, I don't know anyone involved in that particular project.

[Temstar]

What's so bad about Long March 2F? Seems pretty comparable to Soyuz-2 to me. Yes it's hypergolic fuel for a manned rocket which is a bit scary, but Titan II and Proton both did it, and it's 10 for 10 success so far.

Fair enough though if you're talking about China's lack of heavy lift launch vehicles. But that said it is perfectly possible to assemble modular space stations and even circumlunar stacks using Soyuz/Long March 2F sized vehicles.

[Nibb31]

Russians can sell Space Travel to richest tourists !! (sad joke ^^)

But yes, they have the plans so the Russians can do it again, but what interest except the glory ?

Having the blueprints of a rocket doesn't mean you can put it back into production 30 or 50 years later. Technology, manufacturing techniques, facilities, materials, electronics, everything evolves... Some of the materials that made the Saturn V are no longer available. Some of the chemicals have been banned and replaced with new stuff with different properties. Strategic suppliers have disappeared. Some welding techniques are no longer available and have been replaced by CNC machining. Some parts of the rocket were off-the-shelf parts that are no longer available. You would have to study and redesign just about every part of the rocket, at which point you might as well design a new whole new vehicle.

Which is basically what NASA is doing.

In the end, China has a modern operational manned spacecraft and an actual space program. They are going slow, but they have a roadmap and their milestones are funded. In the meantime, NASA is stuck with the ISS.

In 2020, China will have its own space station. At the same time, the ISS will be reaching its end-of-life. NASA will have Orion and SLS (if it isn't cancelled), with 2 planned circumlunar flights, and no money to do anything else. Russia might have its PPTS/PTK and will be starting serious work on OPSEK.

They might be going slow, but looking at where they were 10 years ago, that is huge progress.

[Frogbull]

Just to quote myself, I remembered something yesterday. Its not quite ESA, but, DLR (German Space Agency) have/had an experiment on board of Tiangong-1. I don't know what it was, or what its current status is, as sadly, I don't know anyone involved in that particular project.

Chinese power will attract more and more people. As Mir project in its time. It's a good news for space conquest. But I do not want a Sino-American alliance, since the Russian and the USA work together, they don't do a lot of things.

I prefer the small Cold War perfume, it grows the competition.

What's so bad about Long March 2F? Seems pretty comparable to Soyuz-2 to me. Yes it's hypergolic fuel for a manned rocket which is a bit scary, but Titan II and Proton both did it, and it's 10 for 10 success so far.

The Long March 2F does its job (and does it well!), but it is clearly not an innovative rocket (like you said, hypergolic fuel for a manned rocket is scary, now when we know that NASA has planned a time to use the Atlas V for manned flight, it's relative) that everyone wants to copy.

Having the blueprints of a rocket doesn't mean you can put it back into production 30 or 50 years later.

The Antares uses NK-33 soviet engines of the 60's (N-1 engines); if you have blueprints, you can put back into prod.

You would have to study and redesign just about every part of the rocket, at which point you might as well design a new whole new vehicle.

You're right, that cost a lot but when you know you have the certainty that something works, you do not have to invest a lot in R&D. Go into the unknown changes everything (and the Chinese do not take too many technological risks).

For a stupid politician, a modern project with low cost launch is the key. For my part I prefer proven technologies (unprofitable, like the old Soyuz) rather than innovative technologies not yet mastered (but I know that the future depends on these new technologies).

In 2020, China will have its own space station. At the same time, the ISS will be reaching its end-of-life. NASA will have Orion and SLS (if it isn't cancelled), with 2 planned circumlunar flights, and no money to do anything else. Russia might have its PPTS/PTK and will be starting serious work on OPSEK.

They might be going slow, but looking at where they were 10 years ago, that is huge progress.

They aren't so slow (manned flight in 2003, EVA in 2008, space rendezvous in 2012) but they do not innovate enough (at the moment, they want a nice propaganda, not big failures on TV live).

When the Chinese will do something that Russian have not already done, I would consider them in second place (and that could be done quickly); and I think in the same way for the first place (held by the USA since Apollo).

Now we all know that one of the big advantages of China is, unlike Russia and the USA, its good financial health. But history is not written in advance, when JFK gave his speech in 1961 the USA did not know a lot about Space (only one short suborbital manned flight), 8 years later they had set foot on the Moon.

Political will can change everything.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Frogbull

[tek_604]

The Antares uses NK-33 soviet engines of the 60's (N-1 engines); if you have blueprints, you can put back into prod.

No you can't. Its not just that easy. You'll find that the NK-33's being used were actually BUILT in the 60s/70s, and are refitted. From the English wiki:

The Antares rocket was successfully launched from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on April 21, 2013. This marked the first successful launch of the NK-33 heritage engines built in early 1970s.

Aerojet has agreed to recondition sufficient NK-33s to serve Orbital's 16 flight NASA Commercial Resupply Services contract. Beyond that, it has a stockpile of 23 1960s/70s era engines. Kuznetsov no longer manufactures the engine, and the lack of a continuing supplier brings into question the long term viability of Antares.

Additionally, the Rocketdyne F-1, which lifted the Saturn V, was looked at. And hey, the blueprints are available. Can they just simply rebuild it? No. NASA already looked at it. As someone else mentioned, the materials are no longer used, manufacturing moves on. I seem to remember they were going to take the original design, and update it using modern methods, but I can't remember if thats continuing, or was shelved in the end.

[Nibb31]

The Antares uses NK-33 soviet engines of the 60's (N-1 engines); if you have blueprints, you can put back into prod.

No, you can't.

The Antares actually uses stockpiled NK-33 from the Soviet era, not new production items. Also, it might work in some cases for small parts, but not always. NASA had to completely redesign the J-2X to bring it back into production. It is basically an new engine.

You're right, that cost a lot but when you know you have the certainty that something works, you do not have to invest a lot in R&D. Go into the unknown changes everything (and the Chinese do not take too many technological risks).

That is wrong. As proven above. Nobody brings back a 30 year old design without completely redesigning it. When VW wanted to relaunch the Beetle, they didn't use their 30 year old plans, because it wouldn't have made sense. They redesigned it from scratch using modern techniques.

When te Chinese will do something that Russian have not already done, I would consider them in second place (and that could be done quickly); and I think in the same way for the first place (held by the USA since Apollo).

Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it can't be done better. Innovation doesn't always lie in being the "first" to do something. Innovation is mainly about learning and improving, which is not always spectacular, but sometimes there is more profit in doing something others have done faster, better, and cheaper, than being the first to do it.

You might see Shenzhou as a copy of Soyuz, but it's also a larger, more modern, more modular, and more capable design. There is some real innovation in there, and just because it looks like Soyuz doesn't mean it's just a copy. In that respect, you could say that a Toyota Prius is just a copy of a Ford Escort, because it shares the same general configuration, although it is much more advanced.

Now we all know that one of the big advantages of China is, unlike Russia and the U.S., its good financial health. But history is not written in advance, when JFK gave his speech in 1961 the USA did not know a lot about Space (only one short suborbital manned flight), 8 years later they had set foot on the Moon.

Those were different times. You really can't compare with today's environment. Still, China will have gone from a first manned flight in 1999 to a permanent human presence in space in 2020. That's still a pretty good record. It took the Russians 25 years to get from Gagarin to Mir, (and it took NASA nearly 40 years to do the same). And they are doing it for much cheaper. That is some serious innovation.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Nibb31

[Kryten]

The Antares uses NK-33 soviet engines of the 60's (N-1 engines); if you have blueprints, you can put back into prod.

Those aren't newly built engines, they are literally from the 60s. They were the engines for two more planned N1s, left in a warehouse after the program cancelled. Since N1 used no less than 38 of those engines each, they've a reasonable stockpile; but they haven't been able to get any more built without years of trying (at least without someone telling it'll cost incredible amounts of money) and are now looking at other engine options.

[Frogbull]

That is wrong. As proven above. Nobody brings back a 30 year old design without completely redesigning it.

By 2010, the Russian government reportedly came close to making a decision to jump-start mass production of the NK-33 engine.

Since Soyuz-1 would use a limited cache of old NK-33 engines, Russia's leading rocket propulsion enterprise - NPO Energomash - proposed its RD-193 engine as an eventual replacement for NK-33, if all promises to restart the production of the Moon Race-era NK-33 do not materialize.

Sources: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/nk33.html and http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd193.html

Is it smart to restart the production of an 60's engine ? I don't think so; but they can (I never said it will not be expensive).

Because... they have the plans and the technology; did the Chinese can build an equivalent to the NK-33 (N-1 engine) or RD-170 (Energia engine) ? Answer is NO (at the moment).

You might see Shenzhou as a copy of Soyuz, but it's also a larger, more modern, more modular, and more capable design. There is some real innovation in there, and just because it looks like Soyuz doesn't mean it's just a copy. In that respect, you could say that a Toyota Prius is just a copy of a Ford Escort, because it shares the same general configuration, although it is much more advanced.

Do not make me say what I did not say, this is an old tactic of rhetoric. [French]Et comme je vois que t'es français, je suppose que t'as vu notre ancien président abuser de cette tactique, donc évite stp. [/French]

I never said Shenzhou is a Soyouz made in China; it is clearly a Soyouz inspired rocket but it's not the same base. The Chinese have reason to be proud of their creation and I applaud with both hands.

What I said is that the Chinese (at the moment) don't have invented something that yet surpasses technologies invented by the Russians and the Americans in the past.

This may change if the Russians and the Americans continue to do "nothing" (not a lot) as is the case now.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Frogbull

[Kryten]

Why does it matter what they've done in the past if they can't do it now? Chang'es 1 and 2 beat the pants off of everything that the russians have done in exploration of the moon in the last 35 years, because that's nothing. Even going further back than that, you don't find anything with remotely comparable capability to those. Same in a lot of other areas.

[Frogbull]

Why does it matter what they've done in the past if they can't do it now? Chang'es 1 and 2 beat the pants off of everything that the russians have done in exploration of the moon in the last 35 years, because that's nothing. Even going further back than that, you don't find anything with remotely comparable capability to those. Same in a lot of other areas.

They had the Luna programme between 1959 and 1976, they have nothing to prove (unlike Chinese).

Russia has taken time to recover from the collapse of the USSR and the Elstin years have been disastrous.

China is not immune to a sudden collapse and the russian economy is going better, history has shown us that we can not predict anything for long periods.

If nothing changes (and I do not think this will change, I agree with you on this point), then yes, China will be the main dominant Space country in front of everyone (including USA). But this is not the case at the moment.

[Moon Goddess]

Can't we just say a lot of people from different parts of world are doing really cool things and will do even cooler things in the future and not turn it into a *BLEEP* waving contest?

[Kryten]

Russia has taken time to recover from the collapse of the USSR and the Elstin years have been disastrous.

So why does this not matter when deciding who's ahead? Should we say Britain are the most powerful country in the world because they had the empire?

[Frogbull]

So why does this not matter when deciding who's ahead? Should we say Britain are the most powerful country in the world because they had the empire?

Good exemple, bad conclusion.

I don't said Russia is the most advanced country in the world cause they launched Spoutnik; I said, at the moment, they are technological advanced (in the spatial domain and nuclear warheads, not in all sciences) in comparison with China.

This advance is largely due to its past, I concede.

The // with the British Empire is good, even after the WWI, the WWII and the independence of its colonies; the United Kingdom is still one of the major porwerful country (diplomatic, economic, military) at this time.

China has a powerful economy (much better than Russia, or the UK ^^), year after year China takes points and soon, its economy will be the lead-economy in the World (ahead of the USA), but actualy, China is not the lead-economy.

In the same way, China will surely (not 100% sure, a new chinese leader can stop all the research and let China at this level, history is not written in advance; Obama has canceled Constellation as a moron ) overtake Russia in the Space domain in the coming years but, actualy, this is not yet the case.

The current Russia has a much better economy than 20 years ago.

With political will they can keep their advance, will they try ? I don't think so but who knows ?

(JFK was greatly influenced by von Braun dreams, and Khrushchev by Korolev and Glouchko... Hope one great scientist will make Putin dreaming...)

Edited June 28, 2013 by Frogbull

[Kryten]

Look, take the example of Lunar missions. You say Russia should be ahead in this area because of there past efforts, right? Even if they aren't doing it right now.

Problem is, just look at their actual attempts; Luna-glob was initiated in the early 2000s, and supposed to be launched in 2009; and there's a good chance that it won't even hit it's current target of 2015. The Chang'e program was started around the same time, and now has flown two complete missions and has another fully assembled and undergoing final checks. Which of those sounds like they have more capability to you?

[Frogbull]

Look, take the example of Lunar missions. You say Russia should be ahead in this area because of there past efforts, right? Even if they aren't doing it right now.

Problem is, just look at their actual attempts; Luna-glob was initiated in the early 2000s, and supposed to be launched in 2009; and there's a good chance that it won't even hit it's current target of 2015. The Chang'e program was started around the same time, and now has flown two complete missions and has another fully assembled and undergoing final checks. Which of those sounds like they have more capability to you?

Russia can send men in Space, the USA can't.

Which of those sounds like they have more capability to you?

You said before that Russia had do nothing about the Moon during the last 35 years and now you're talking about Luna-Glob; it sounds contradictory, no?

Luna-glob can be compared with Chang'e program: sure. But Chang'e program can be also compared with the old Luna program.

Luna-glob is delayed: sure (like a lot of Space programs, even some Chinese programs are delayed)

Chang'e program is the most innovative Moon program: not sure, it's more a demonstrative program (China do its way step-by-step and it seems to be the best way to advance and, ofc, they do it well)

Fobos-Grunt failed in Space so it's a piece of **** ? No, the problem was the Zenit launcher.

Irony is cruel, this Russian failed is a common failed with China, cause of the Yinghuo-1 probe.

Same for Mars 96 ? And what about Mars Climate Orbiter ?

Accidents happen, the Chinese will have some (I hope not but it's a no-negligible probability). Space is dangerous, we know that since Komarov and Columbia reminded us cruelly.

The Russians have Angara almost ready to be launched, China has ... ? Long March 5 ?

Which country has landed probes on Venus ? Which country has the more manned flight hours ?

All the ISS modules were easy to build ? Easy to launch ? Easy to dock ? All were build in the Soviet Era ?

It is easy to dismiss Russia, their spatial policy is not easy to follow and they have made a lot of mistakes; but you've to do some mistakes to advance.

Unless you think China will never make mistakes ? Absolute perfection until Mars landing ?

[Kryten]

What they've done in the past, or rather what the USSR did in the past, has nothing to do with the present. Not only is it not the same country, all the engineers and scientists who made these things happen are dead. That's we we have things like the P-G failure; it wasn't the Zenit, it was the main flight computer. It didn't have some kind of minor glitch, it simply didn't even work at all. The Russians at that point finally realised how badly they'd messed up, and right then they moved Luna-Glob back several years, because it had a bunch of common components. What kind of space program launches a hundred million dollar spacecraft without making sure it can even turn on? One that's made your mistake; badly mistaken their own capabilities.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Kryten

[Frogbull]

all the engineers and scientists who made these things happen are dead.

All the Mir engineers are dead ? All the Energia engineers are dead ? All the Buran engineers are dead ? All the Cosmonauts are dead ? You must tell them to join their coffins, they forgot. A good part of them still work in the Space industry. (Zombie apocalypse perhaps ? )

At the Soviet Era the Soviets build the too complex N-1 (30 engines for the first-stage, pure madness! ) but it was the same engineers that built the Soyouz (the first flights of the Semiorka were disastrous!).

The NASA made the Space Shuttle with an incredible number of design mistakes; and it's not a complex probe they lost but 14 human lives !

You judge too quickly... Space industry is extremely hard.

When you are a Space Engineer :

You have the pressure of your hierarchy.

You have to handle the latest technologies (and sometimes it's risky).

You have the fear to see your budget cutted.

The public don't like you because they think "why Spend money for Sci-Fi dreamers ?"

(they forget in passing that without these dreamers they would not have their ****ing GPS and a lot of technologies...).

So yes, sometimes they make huge mistakes, they are not infallibles but Chinese engineers are not exceptions.

[Necandi Brasil]

Hello friends...

Imagine these kinds of problem here in Brazil? We had a pad explosion in 2003 of what was going to be our first national rocket to deliver a payload to LEO. After 10 years we are behind of other BRIC countries in this area...

I can say the problem here is exactly this... "Why spend money up there if children are hungry here..." They lack the vision of riches on both materials and energy that a space exploration can provide.

If we are lucky and the next president see this trought , maybe we could unite efforts with China... That's only a dream tought.

And in my opinion, little has changed since the 60's in space exploration... We still don't send hundreds of people to space as we was expecting, the engines are only as small percentage more efficient than 60's engines (This does not include ion engines...).