Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

JonClarke · 2012-06-16 03:04:39

You can watch this on http://english.cntv.cn/live/

Great coverage so far

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-06-16 03:09:31)

Rune · 2012-06-16 04:54:10

Incredibly laggy webcast, but nonetheless... Poyekhali!

Congrats to the chinese, and good luck with the mission.

Rune. I gotta learn how to say that in chinese.

Impaler · 2012-06-16 05:23:54

Yep laggy but a solid launch, thx for posting that Clark.

Last edited by Impaler (2012-06-16 07:07:46)

JonClarke · 2012-06-16 06:51:53

Rolling replays of the launch - some great images

http://english.cntv.cn/special/shenzhou9/index.shtml

Some other good videos on the site with launch preperations

Docking on the 18th at 06:00 UTC

JonClarke · 2012-06-18 00:34:11

Hard dock achieved, hatches about to be opened.

Terraformer · 2012-06-18 07:07:55

So, I suppose we can say there are two manned space stations in orbit? It's an improvement, I guess...

How many people do we have in orbit at a given time, then?

JonClarke · 2012-06-18 15:35:28

Terraformer wrote:

So, I suppose we can say there are two manned space stations in orbit? It's an improvement, I guess...
How many people do we have in orbit at a given time, then?

It's step in the right direction. We currently have nine people in Orbit, and wll have for the next ten days.

JonClarke · 2012-06-18 15:38:52

This is the third crew related launch by China in nine months. There is a reasonable chance of one more before the end of the year.

Impaler · 2012-06-18 23:58:34

I've been wondering, the Chinese space program seems to be described with all kinds of words like 'ambitious' 'aggressive' 'screaming yellow hordes' in Jingoistic publications and discussion groups. But when it's actual launch rate is compared to the Gemini and Vostok programs it actually looks relatively conservative. I think the Chinese government is attaching a high importance to not suffering any lose of human life or lose of mission in their program. Their program is entirely public, not like the soviet program, nor is it on the nearly unshakable foundation of public support that ensured Apollo could survive mistakes like the Apollo-1 disaster. And thus they are giving all their tech a long shakedown period between missions and structuring each mission to be as risk-averse as possible.

China's plans for the remainder of the decade consist of building a relatively modest station, smaller then Mir from the looks of it. Also I believe the stations intended for intermittent habitation rather then continual habitation. That would put their capability below that of the pre-collapse 1980's Soviet Union so it would be arguable that even with that achievement China would still be 3rd in a hypothetical 'new space race' (call it a space-jog). Their announced intent to make a Moon landing would decisively move them into 2nd but their plans for doing so are are nebulous from a technical perspective as the Russians, only the presumed budgetary largesse of China makes their claim more believable.

But if a credible Russian first landing or American return to the moon is not materializing in the 2020 time frame what incentive dose China have to push ahead with it's own landing. They risk dead-men in Space, a potentially very shameful event. But they can't win glory ware their is no credible competition and in doing something that's already been done. Their is so much less glory for being second it's hardly worth the cost, just as the Soviet space program didn't bother going to the moon after Apollo but instead went the Space-Station route ware they achieved significant success.

If I was Hu Jintao (or the guy who will be in charge of China in the 2020 time frame) I'd direct the program at achieving a NEA visit. It's a genuine "first" that would win a lot more glory then a Moon landing while actually leveraging the knowledge that would be gained in this decades space-station phase without the need to develop radically different (and single use) stuff like a Lunar lander or a SHLV. The NEA visit also a stated goal of the US so it could be spun as a genuine race even if the US largely doesn't rise to the challenge, nor can the 'been-their-done-that" defense be employed.

It all really hinges on, will the Chinese space program become more or less risk-averse when it is not re-creating the prerequisite foot-in-the-door achievements of the original space-race but is instead doing it's own unique "firsts" in space. Doing your own firsts can be a lot more forgiving, ware it is shameful to fail in an attempt to repeat someone else achievement, if the goal is a genuine first almost any number of failures are tolerable so long as the goal is ultimately achieved. This really comes down to cultural risk-tolerance both in the national leadership, national public and the national space agency.

Last edited by Impaler (2012-06-19 00:05:35)

JonClarke · 2012-06-19 17:54:57

You are assuming the only justification for the Chinese space progam is "glory". The converse is true. the Chinese space program is driven primarily about needing national needs, building capabilities they deem neccessary. Hence the emphasis on Earth observation, communications, tracking and data relay, navigation, and technology development. A crewed orbital laboratory is clear seen to be part of that.

Space exploration is a small part of this, but the Chang'e 1 and 2 missions have been grerat successes, Chang'e 2 is currently on the way to asteroid Toutatis for a January 2012 rendezvous. More lunar and asteroid missions are under development.

They are in no hurry, there is no "race", they build capabilities rationally within the larger constraints of national policy. They minimise risk, as any rational organisation does, with the result they have the most reliable rockets in large scale service today. Space program goals are detailed in the five year plans, which to date have always been met, with longer term goals outlined to ten years out.

It is a very rational and admirable program.

Glandu · 2012-06-20 02:13:07

JonClarke wrote:

(.../...)
It is a very rational and admirable program.

+1

Please note that the political stability brought by their political system helps a lot. No elections, pure merit promotion. Of course, this system also has drawbacks(I will not dig them, I hope everyone knows them).

Matthew Heins · 2012-06-20 15:13:55

Glandu wrote:

...pure merit promotion...

The trick here being that "merit" does not equal "quality as scientist or engineer or astronaut", but something rather different.

Impressive feat none the less.

Makes me wonder what they, and we all, could achieve by working together.

louis · 2012-06-20 18:16:25

JonClarke wrote:

You are assuming the only justification for the Chinese space progam is "glory". The converse is true. the Chinese space program is driven primarily about needing national needs, building capabilities they deem neccessary. Hence the emphasis on Earth observation, communications, tracking and data relay, navigation, and technology development. A crewed orbital laboratory is clear seen to be part of that.
Space exploration is a small part of this, but the Chang'e 1 and 2 missions have been grerat successes, Chang'e 2 is currently on the way to asteroid Toutatis for a January 2012 rendezvous. More lunar and asteroid missions are under development.
They are in no hurry, there is no "race", they build capabilities rationally within the larger constraints of national policy. They minimise risk, as any rational organisation does, with the result they have the most reliable rockets in large scale service today. Space program goals are detailed in the five year plans, which to date have always been met, with longer term goals outlined to ten years out.
It is a very rational and admirable program.

You are talking about the regime that murders trade unionists and journalists, tortures nationalist protestors, was responsible for millions of deaths of its own citizens, cheats at international trade, indulges in forced abortions, has the highest legal execution rate in teh world and zapped a satellite with a laser?

Please stop the Soviet-era propaganda. It's not at all "admirable" that a totalitarian regime should have a successful programme - it can only be worrying.

The Chinese with a population of one billion plus, all the resources of a centralised state since the Sputnik era - nearly five decades - and the benefit of Soviet designs are not that impressive when compared to Space X who have managed to leap from nowhere to orbital assembly in 8 years. Let's hope they keep up their plodding progress.

Impaler · 2012-06-20 23:25:44

Lets not get into a political food-fight here.

I was discussing only the relative risk-tolerance of the Chinese program and I'm saying it seems to be more risk-averse then both the US and Soviet systems in the original space race which is perfectly consistent with the fact their is as of right now no race.

Clark: I never said that national glory was the only justification for their program, your making a straw-man argument as their are obviously huge military and civilian technology benefits. But you would have to be a fool to claim national glory is not A part of the justification, particularly something like a Moon-landing which is the mission I was specifically contrasting with a NEA mission.

JonClarke · 2012-06-24 20:14:18

louis wrote:

You are talking about the regime that murders trade unionists and journalists, tortures nationalist protestors, was responsible for millions of deaths of its own citizens, cheats at international trade, indulges in forced abortions, has the highest legal execution rate in teh world and zapped a satellite with a laser?
Please stop the Soviet-era propaganda. It's not at all "admirable" that a totalitarian regime should have a successful programme - it can only be worrying.
The Chinese with a population of one billion plus, all the resources of a centralised state since the Sputnik era - nearly five decades - and the benefit of Soviet designs are not that impressive when compared to Space X who have managed to leap from nowhere to orbital assembly in 8 years. Let's hope they keep up their plodding progress.

By the same token you should avoid demonising a country that, while far from perfect, has made enormous strides in the past 50 years and whose people on average are better fed, housed, educated and enjoy greater freedoms than at any time in their history.

Admirable achievements are worth admiring, regardlness of the nation that carries them out. Someone may find little to admire about the US, but still admire their achievements in space.

If you think that the Chinese space program is based on "Soviet designs" then you know very little about the topic.

Comparing the efforts of SpaceX to the entire Chinese space program is comparing thr fruit of a single tree, not matter how sweet, with the produce of a diverse orchard.

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-06-24 20:16:22)

JonClarke · 2012-06-24 20:23:44

Impaler wrote:

Lets not get into a political food-fight here.
I was discussing only the relative risk-tolerance of the Chinese program and I'm saying it seems to be more risk-averse then both the US and Soviet systems in the original space race which is perfectly consistent with the fact their is as of right now no race.
Clark: I never said that national glory was the only justification for their program, your making a straw-man argument as their are obviously huge military and civilian technology benefits. But you would have to be a fool to claim national glory is not A part of the justification, particularly something like a Moon-landing which is the mission I was specifically contrasting with a NEA mission.

With respect to possible Chinese crewed missions to the Moon.

But they can't win glory ware their is no credible competition and in doing something that's already been done. Their is so much less glory for being second it's hardly worth the cost..

And

If I was Hu Jintao (or the guy who will be in charge of China in the 2020 time frame) I'd direct the program at achieving a NEA visit. It's a genuine "first" that would win a lot more glory then a Moon landing while actually leveraging the knowledge that would be gained in this decades space-station phase without the need to develop radically different (and single use) stuff like a Lunar lander or a SHLV. The NEA visit also a stated goal of the US so it could be spun as a genuine race even if the US largely doesn't rise to the challenge, nor can the 'been-their-done-that" defense be employed.

Both clear imply the "glory" is (or should be) the prime motivation.

I suggest that "glory" in this era, plays a much smaller role in Chinese policythan you propose, and very much a secondary concern. Of course they have every right to celebrate their achievements.

JonClarke · 2012-06-24 20:59:53

Glandu wrote:

JonClarke wrote:
(.../...)
It is a very rational and admirable program.
+1
Please note that the political stability brought by their political system helps a lot. No elections, pure merit promotion. Of course, this system also has drawbacks(I will not dig them, I hope everyone knows them).

Possibly, although note that ESA also has a rational program based on a multi-year cycle,like China, and that the US military and security services have steady funding and rational developmenty (as far as we can tell), despite elections. Conversely the Soviet space program suffered from very nasty infighting.

Steady progress would appear to require broad political support and separation of policy from short term partisan objectives, regardless of the political system in question.

Impaler · 2012-06-25 06:05:03

I'm trying to draw a distinction between what activities have been done so far (satellites, manned docking, space-station building) which have a lot of justifications other then national glory and a manned Moon landing which has no justification BUT glory. The Moon is not a military 'high-ground', it's in another gravity well after all, systems developed to land on the moon are usable only for that one purpose. After-all, if the Moon was really intrinsically worth going to then the Soviets would have done it even after the US got their first, just as each nation did every other step along the way and the US eventually did stations despite not being first, truly justified development you do regardless of being 'first'. About the only thing you can argue is that the space industry is expanded and matured by the effort but any space-program goal can do that. Thus I conclude that China wishes (if they can be taken at their word) to begin a program in the 2020 time frame that will achieve a 'glory mission'. And if that is their goal I'd recommend the NEA mission instead, it's even arguable that the NEA mission dose far more to advance human space-flight generally and their capacity specifically then going to the moon, they would need to solve the radiation and bone-loss barriers which would be HUGE.

GW Johnson · 2012-06-25 13:49:31

I predict there will some effort to make a "space race" among some of the participants, sort of a "who can be the first to do what the Americans did and now can no longer do" sort of thing. I hope the other spacefaring countries are not stupid enough to do it that way. There is no need to race, nor to do a "crash program" so very rapidly. What the Chinese are doing is the right thing. And they are being slow and careful enough to make it work right. I have no doubt they will go to the moon in a very few years.

There is a problem with a hostile power on the moon, if you cannot go there yourself, and international conditions are hostile enough to cause warfare. This is an old science fiction concept from the 1930's and 1940's, but it was also a very real fear during the buildup to the space race in the 1950's. A base on the moon with an appropriate "catapult" can throw guided rocks back at specific targets on Earth, because lunar escape velocity is so slow. The guidance need be no more sophisticated than a 1970's vintage missile to work. The rock hits atmosphere at Earth escape speed, and if monolithic, explodes with the force of a large nuke weapon on impact with the ground, not up in the air.

It is easy to shoot "down" at the Earth from a shallow gravity well, it is very hard to shoot back up out of our deep gravity well at the moon. Very asymmetric warfare situation. The moon really is a "high ground" in that sort of war scenario. You can bet your bottom monetary unit (whatever it is) that the US , Russian, Chinese, and several European countries are at least considering what a future like that might be, and how to forestall it. It's a risk as long as humans make war on each other. Hopefully, we all can keep it a low-probability risk. But that's another problem: the history of the 20th century makes that outlook look more than a little grim.

But, even that's no reason to "race" back to the moon. It's hard to shoot back up the moon, but not impossible these days, not like it was ca. 1960. A base there is not invulnerable anymore. The war is asymmetric, but not unwinnable. All the major spacefaring countries understand that. There's a couple of "wannabes" that might attempt such an ugly thing if they could, but fortunately, they can't. Not for a long while yet. No need to name them. Y'all know who they are.

That's why the form and detail of a space treaty is so important. You want to promote business and trade off Earth and with Earth, but you want to try to forestall any warfare, because it can be so very devastating here (or anywhere). That's not an easy thing to do, especially when the very best propulsion concepts we have, mostly involve nuclear stuff out there.

We still don't have the right treaty, or any mechanism to enforce it other than warfare.

GW

JonClarke · 2012-06-25 15:41:48

Impaler wrote:

I'm trying to draw a distinction between what activities have been done so far (satellites, manned docking, space-station building) which have a lot of justifications other then national glory and a manned Moon landing which has no justification BUT glory. The Moon is not a military 'high-ground', it's in another gravity well after all, systems developed to land on the moon are usable only for that one purpose. After-all, if the Moon was really intrinsically worth going to then the Soviets would have done it even after the US got their first, just as each nation did every other step along the way and the US eventually did stations despite not being first, truly justified development you do regardless of being 'first'. About the only thing you can argue is that the space industry is expanded and matured by the effort but any space-program goal can do that. Thus I conclude that China wishes (if they can be taken at their word) to begin a program in the 2020 time frame that will achieve a 'glory mission'. And if that is their goal I'd recommend the NEA mission instead, it's even arguable that the NEA mission dose far more to advance human space-flight generally and their capacity specifically then going to the moon, they would need to solve the radiation and bone-loss barriers which would be HUGE.

There are a lot of reasons to go to the Moon other than "glory". A great many scientific reasons for certain, far more than an asteroid mission (interesting though that is) there are potentially logistic and economic reasons as well, which we won't know until we try.

Radiaton and bone losses issues are exaggerated. Both can (and to a large extent have) been addressed in Earth orbit, any residual radiation issues related to being beyond the terrestrial magnetosphere can be addressed incrementally on the Moon.

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-06-25 15:45:15)

JonClarke · 2012-06-25 15:50:51

GW Johnson wrote:

I predict there will some effort to make a "space race" among some of the participants, sort of a "who can be the first to do what the Americans did and now can no longer do" sort of thing. I hope the other spacefaring countries are not stupid enough to do it that way. There is no need to race, nor to do a "crash program" so very rapidly. What the Chinese are doing is the right thing. And they are being slow and careful enough to make it work right. I have no doubt they will go to the moon in a very few years.
There is a problem with a hostile power on the moon, if you cannot go there yourself, and international conditions are hostile enough to cause warfare. This is an old science fiction concept from the 1930's and 1940's, but it was also a very real fear during the buildup to the space race in the 1950's. A base on the moon with an appropriate "catapult" can throw guided rocks back at specific targets on Earth, because lunar escape velocity is so slow. The guidance need be no more sophisticated than a 1970's vintage missile to work. The rock hits atmosphere at Earth escape speed, and if monolithic, explodes with the force of a large nuke weapon on impact with the ground, not up in the air.
It is easy to shoot "down" at the Earth from a shallow gravity well, it is very hard to shoot back up out of our deep gravity well at the moon. Very asymmetric warfare situation. The moon really is a "high ground" in that sort of war scenario. You can bet your bottom monetary unit (whatever it is) that the US , Russian, Chinese, and several European countries are at least considering what a future like that might be, and how to forestall it. It's a risk as long as humans make war on each other. Hopefully, we all can keep it a low-probability risk. But that's another problem: the history of the 20th century makes that outlook look more than a little grim.
But, even that's no reason to "race" back to the moon. It's hard to shoot back up the moon, but not impossible these days, not like it was ca. 1960. A base there is not invulnerable anymore. The war is asymmetric, but not unwinnable. All the major spacefaring countries understand that. There's a couple of "wannabes" that might attempt such an ugly thing if they could, but fortunately, they can't. Not for a long while yet. No need to name them. Y'all know who they are.
That's why the form and detail of a space treaty is so important. You want to promote business and trade off Earth and with Earth, but you want to try to forestall any warfare, because it can be so very devastating here (or anywhere). That's not an easy thing to do, especially when the very best propulsion concepts we have, mostly involve nuclear stuff out there.
We still don't have the right treaty, or any mechanism to enforce it other than warfare.
GW

The whole "race" analogy is an anachronism.

The Moon is useless as a military base, despite a lot of bad SF to the contrary. The high ground in space is LEO

No hostile power is likely to get to the Moon. Al Qaeda does not have a space program

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-06-26 01:46:02)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-06-16 03:04:39

Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#2 2012-06-16 04:54:10

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#3 2012-06-16 05:23:54

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#4 2012-06-16 06:51:53

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#5 2012-06-18 00:34:11

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#6 2012-06-18 07:07:55

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#7 2012-06-18 15:35:28

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#8 2012-06-18 15:38:52

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#9 2012-06-18 23:58:34

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#10 2012-06-19 17:54:57

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#11 2012-06-20 02:13:07

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#12 2012-06-20 15:13:55

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#13 2012-06-20 18:16:25

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#14 2012-06-20 23:25:44

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#15 2012-06-24 20:14:18

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#16 2012-06-24 20:23:44

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#17 2012-06-24 20:59:53

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#18 2012-06-25 06:05:03

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#19 2012-06-25 13:49:31

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#20 2012-06-25 15:41:48

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

#21 2012-06-25 15:50:51

Re: Shenzhou 9 launch LIVE

Board footer