China launches third manned mission

[WhiteCrow]

You know the Chinese space program is an odd thing - I'd almost forgotten they've launched a man into space before. Now they're on their third manned mission - I'm surprised they didn't try to coincide this with the Olympics. Anyway all well done - are they setting their sights eventually at the Moon? They may well be there before the Americans ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7634404.stm

China has launched its third manned space mission - which is to feature the country's first spacewalk.

The Shenzhou VII capsule soared into orbit atop a Long-March II-F rocket from the Jiuquan spaceport in Gansu province in the northwest of China.

The 70-hour flight will include a spacewalk undertaken by 42-year-old fighter pilot Zhai Zhigang.

Mr Zhai is joined on the mission by two other "yuhangyuan" (astronauts) - Liu Boming and Jing Haipeng.

The rocket lit up the darkness as it blasted off from Jiuquan at 2110 Beijing Time (1310 GMT).

China's president Hu Jintao met the three astronauts before the lift-off, wishing them success on the nation's riskiest space mission yet.

"You will definitely accomplish this glorious and sacred mission. The motherland and the people are looking forward to your triumphant return," President Hu told the yuhangyuan, who were dressed in flight suits and behind glass to avoid being exposed to germs.

The rocket will put the Shenzhou capsule in a near-circular orbit more than 300km above the Earth.

Mr Zhai will conduct his extra-vehicular activity (EVA) on either Friday or Saturday.

When he steps out into space, Mr Zhai is expected to wear a Chinese-made space suit and will be tethered to the capsule for safety. Liu Boming will monitor the activity, presumably to reel the spacewalker back inside if there is an emergency.

[Rob McCow]

"You will definitely accomplish this glorious and sacred mission. The motherland and the people are looking forward to your triumphant return,"

Although that's an insane piece of rhetoric, it's just the sort of thing that's needed to advance the space program. They may be brutal, but they've got the passion to get to the moon.

[SiHart]

I wonder if this will start a new space race? This could be the spearhead needed to get it going- the USA/ NASA's seeming dominance of space flight could be coming to an end again. I think that would be a good thing. There doesn't seem to have been the passion for going into space that there used to be.

Si xx

[WhiteCrow]

$700 billion would be better spent sending half of Wall Street into space never to return. I always thought the B-Ark plan was a good idea.

[Ralph]

A man on the Moon by 2020 - wow!

[Jason Thompson]

In some ways I hope this does provoke a new space race, but in others that would be sad.

On the plus side, the passion and interest in space may be reignited, and we might actually get somewhere worthwhile with it. That has been seriously absent, arguably since even before Apollo came to an end, and certainly since Challenger. On the down side, it is somewhat sad that fifty years after the space age started countries are still doing it in isolation, with China now repeating the very earliest steps in space - steps that the US and Russia completed almost half a century ago - simply because they stubbornly refuse to avail themselves of the experience and resources already in existence for manned space flight.

[WhiteCrow]

I thought most of the Chinese capsule techonology was reverse engineered from Russian Vostock work.

[Jason Thompson]

The Chinese Shenzou is basically a Russian Soyuz with a few minor differences, but they didn't get Russian help, they just used available specs and possibly espionage to get the design.

[Carol Baynes]

I'm going to give this thread a different slant now, just because of the mood I'm in-

What is it- 13 percent of the world's population- that do not have enough food? And how much did that rocket cost? What a upside down world we live in.
I think space exploration is a great idea, but I do think we need to take responsibility for ourselves a race first before we look to the stars.
Apparently the amount of grain that feeds the cattle some of us eat, could be used to feed the poorer countries, and yet it always seems to boil down to power and money and the control of resources and money (the wonderful global economy- a 'make believe' system that is all too real to the poorer nations in the world).
On the subject of power, perhaps launching a craft into space is a huge political statement, aside from the scientific benefits.

I do think the priorities of those in power leaves a lot to be disired, however.

[Lissa]

I think it's a fair assumption to make that the money countries like America and China spend on their space programmes is money which would otherwise be spent on weapons development. I want someone to get to the moon - Mars preferably - and I don't care if it is the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians, the Europeans or Manchester City with their ambitious new owners. I want the world to stop for a few hours and share an enormous achievement. I envy those who could watch it for the very first time in 1969 but for everyone who wasn't born in 1972 this would still be an incredible experience.

It is science which will solve all the problems of hunger, thirst and disease. The space programme is science at its most high profile. If a new generation can be inspired by seeing people exploring space then that's a new generation inspired by science.

[Carol Baynes]

It is science which will solve all the problems of hunger, thirst and disease. The space programme is science at its most high profile. If a new generation can be inspired by seeing people exploring space then that's a new generation inspired by science.

I'm liable to agree Lissa, but perhaps not all the problems of the above. Sometimes I do think it comes down to humanitarian effort and priorities (which shouldn't be viewed as an effort really). Science will always help enormously of course! And inspiration is always needed for each generation.

[Captain Tancredi]

While I take Carol's point, a large part of the motivation behind the space race of the 1950s and 1960s was political (and partly military, the same research going equally into moon shots and ICBMs). Once NASA had put people on the moon, American politicians rapidly realised that the next logical development of the technology- a manned mission to Mars- was going to cost a heck of a lot more money over a longer period of time and couldn't be justified to the American taxpayer.

Things like the Space Shuttle and Ariane happened because putting satellites into orbit has commercial and military value. The Voyager probes cost a lot to put up there, but that's against 20+ years' worth of data about the solar system transmitted back to Earth.

A Chinese moon mission has the potential to encourage (or embarrass) the other powers capable of space missions to take their rockets out of mothballs and start thinking big again- the one thing which would probably get the Americans seriously looking at Mars is the thought of the Chinese getting there first (although personally I'd like to see a multinational mission to Mars, there are probably too many national interests at stake- and no doubt the token British astronaut would be left inside the capsule to look after the coats).

(Apologies for any scientific/historical inaccuracies in the above)

[WhiteCrow]

Well Mrs Crow started a huge argument with me - saying they can't call it walking in space, as it's more like floating.

Help!

[Dirk Gently]

Well she does have a point.

[Jason Thompson]

What is it- 13 percent of the world's population- that do not have enough food? And how much did that rocket cost? What a upside down world we live in.

Space flight is a highly visible use of funds, but that does not mean it is excessive or that the money has been taken from the needy.

As an example, this financial year, NASA got $17 billion from the US Federal Budget. Sounds a lot, until you go on to see that the US military got over $400 billion, and the department of health and social security over $700 billion. NASA's entire budget for the Apollo program converted into today's money still only comes to $150 billion. That's over more than a decade and is less than half of what the US military is spending per year. That $17 billion just ain't going to make a huge difference, however much some might think that it will improve all the world's ills. And that $17 billion is generating econimcal returns, employing people, and generally providing some great benefits, even if they are not immediately obvious or anticipated.

Now I do think that the world food situation is appalling, but taking money away from scientific endeavours is not the way to solve it.

I think space exploration is a great idea, but I do think we need to take responsibility for ourselves a race first before we look to the stars.

But looking to the stars is doing just that. The technological output from NASA's use of funds, as paltry as they seem in comparison to the funds already going to projects with the stated aims of improving life, has resulted in some amazing things that make life a lot better today. GPS, global communication, weather satellites, medical understanding, materials science, improvements in computer technology, even the sport of hang-gliding had its roots in NASA's Gemini program. The guys who cleaned up the worst of the mess at Chernobyl used a team already famous for building the Soviet Lunokhod rovers.

You don't have to make sure your house is completely clean and tidy before you go out to explore your surroundings. And if I was feeling really picky, do you give your 'disposable income' to the poor and needy in your town, or go out and buy that new stereo? The point is that it is not the 'either/or' situation many would paint it as. You can leave your house in a bit of a mess while you go out, and you may find a new cleaning product that means you can make your house even more clean once you get home. You can donate to the poor and buy that stereo, which may improve your mood and make you more productive and happy, thus increasing your willingness to help others. There is no reason we cannot explore space and look into solving problems here on Earth at the same time, and indeed exploring space has already proven to be helpful back here on Earth.

On the subject of power, perhaps launching a craft into space is a huge political statement, aside from the scientific benefits.

That is exactly what it is in the case of China. They are using their funds and efforts to replicate stuff that was being done half a century ago, just so they can say they did it all themselves. There is nothing new about putting a spacecraft into orbit or making a spacewalk. They just want to do it all themselves, shunning the existing technology and expertise that has already allowed us to put men on the Moon and have a permanent manned presence in an orbiting station. It is no more than political posturing.

[Carol Baynes]

Space flight is a highly visible use of funds, but that does not mean it is excessive or that the money has been taken from the needy.

I was afraid you might think I was trying to say that (or though that). I was basically making the point that we shouldn't forget what else we should be doing or is going on. We seem so impressive and forward thinking in areas like this, yet we're still bombing the shit out of each other in parts of the globe. Or at least the people running the show are convincing us it's sometimes a good idea to do that.
Informative to hear the NASA statistics though, thanks for those.

Now I do think that the world food situation is appalling, but taking money away from scientific endeavours is not the way to solve it.

I'd have to be bloody stupid to suggest that, which I wasn't.

But looking to the stars is doing just that.

Just a turn of phrase from me, I hope you realise.

There is no reason we cannot explore space and look into solving problems here on Earth at the same time

Well as long as we are, eh?

[Jason Thompson]

I was afraid you might think I was trying to say that (or though that).

I can't see any other way to take it, to be honest. I'm sorry if I seemed to jump down your throat, but I am frankly sick of hearing people complaining about space flight being a frivolous use of money in the face of world poverty or some such. It really touches a raw nerve with me.

I was basically making the point that we shouldn't forget what else we should be doing or is going on.

No, of course we shouldn't. But we're not. It's on the news every day. We have adverts showing highly emotive scenes and asking us for £2 a month to save children/animals/old people. The state of the world is very prominently reported. Yet, whenever a big endeavour like this gets in the news we're suddenly accused by some of forgetting the bad stuff and wasting money.

Informative to hear the NASA statistics though, thanks for those.

You're very welcome. Frankly I think NASA and the other space agencies should be making more out of the benefits that their relatively low funds have actually provided. That might make people think twice before moaning about the waste of money (not directed at you, Carol, but the way I've heard some people on other forums go on it's as if they think they just load the rocket with money and fire it into space). Instead, it falls to space enthusiasts such as myself to fight that corner. Given the way most space agencies are funded (i.e. from taxes) it seems utterly absurd to me that they're not making more of the returns on investment being made. They might get more money if they tell people that they're the reason they have some of the things they take for granted these days.

I'd have to be bloody stupid to suggest that, which I wasn't.

I'm afraid the inference did seem to be there, but even if you weren't suggesting it, others most certainly do. If I misread you, I apologise.

Well as long as we are, eh?

We most certainly are. There's room for improvement, absolutely, but we are working on the problems here as well as exploring space.

[WhiteCrow]

Well I have to say there is something to both your points.

There have been two news stories from China this week. One paints the picture of a bold industrial power blazing into space.

The other shows a country teetering on the edge of being a Third World country ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7635466.stm

China's failure to produce good milk has killed at least four babies, and sickened many thousands of others.

Domestic and export markets in anything that might contain Chinese milk powder are stymied, and scores of dairy firms have gone to the wall.

The still unravelling saga has reduced China's reputation for food safety - and manufacturing integrity - to its lowest level in years.

It is such a strange dichotomy - surely a country which could get a man into space, can get milk?

It's like the Spitting Image sketch which satired the USSR's great space program, but inability to get bread onto shelves in shops.

[Rob McCow]

I agree with Jason! Space travel is in no way a 'frivolous' use of money. If you've ever used a TomTom or a saucepan you should thank the space agencies.

Frankly, if we don't get our arses into space we will fail as a species.

[WhiteCrow]

In an ideal world we'd see the amount we spend on our space budget and the amount we spend on our defense budget swapped around.

Have we forgotten about the pioneering in space?

Space is about to be turned into the ultimate tourist destination for the super-rich. That's a massive leap for the techonology. But we're still no closer to a return to the Moon or the ellusive Man on Mars.