Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Launches Space Station Laboratory Module

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the all-space-stations-must-charge-with-micro-usb dept.

China 178

wisebabo writes with news from CNN that "China's first space laboratory module launched Thursday, according to state-run media, an important milestone in China's plan to build a space station." The module, known as Tiangong-1, features sleeping areas and exercise equipment. Writes wisebabo: "In another universe (Arthur C. Clarke's 2011), it would be on its way to Europa by now. Anyone know what orbital plane/altitude it's at? Can it be reached by NASA/Soyuz? Are the docking ports compatible? How about the air pressure/breathing mix?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (4, Funny)

acidradio (659704) | about 3 years ago | (#37556424)

Will they make sneering faces at each other? Rude hand gestures? Will they "haze" the other space station? Teepee their solar collectors in the night? Will the ISS astronauts pop in from time to time to borrow a cup of sugar? Host a friendly neighborhood barbecue?

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37556492)

Bad, seeing as the US has been playing schoolyard bully with China over access to the ISS. After being denied so many times they got their own space station. And now the US has no manned space program. Who's got the last laugh now, Washington?

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557142)

Was that because of the whole Chinese space program being a part of their military or was for some other reason(s)?

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37557408)

Space program is (effectively) a part of military in all countries that do it. These technologies are so obviously dual-use that it would be a waste to do things differently.

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557552)

Does it matter if it was a military project or part of any other government organisation?
There is not much profit to be made anywhere in space so if you have a space program that relies on private entities then the space program is doomed.
At the moment there are only military and scientific reasons to be in space.

Once China is at the top of the gravity well and someone manages to explain to the polititians how their military benefits from this then you can expect NASAs budget to be adjusted.

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37557654)

if you have a space program that relies on private entities then the space program is doomed.

SpaceX [spacex.com] . Discuss.

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (2)

PyroMosh (287149) | about 3 years ago | (#37557802)

SpaceX isn't a space program, it's a launch service. It makes sense to be able to deliver stuff to orbit. We do this all the time and there is a commercial need.

There is less commercial demand for studying embryonic development in microgravity, or launching climate observation satellites or experimenting with solar sails.

The two can coexist, and even benefit from one another, but SpacX is *not* a space program by the traditional definition.

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (-1, Flamebait)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37557002)

The ISS astronauts will try to go out for Chinese Food and find they have to take a number, a rather high one. Is PRC Joke! Laugh!

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (1)

That Guy From Mrktng (2274712) | about 3 years ago | (#37558096)

Space food stamps?

Don't count on it (-1, Flamebait)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 3 years ago | (#37557008)

Host a friendly neighborhood barbecue?

Only if the occupants of the other station is the main course.

Re:Good or bad neighbors with the ISS? (4, Funny)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 3 years ago | (#37558038)

Have you learned nothing from how chinese immigrants behave in other countries? Now the guys up in the ISS finally can have cheap take-out and dry-cleaning!

Clarke's naive miscalculation (2)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37556446)

"In another universe (Arthur C. Clarke's 2011), it would be on its way to Europa by now.

Clarke naively believed NASA and the U.S. government when they said that the space race WASN'T just a Cold War pissing contest. He never figured in the possibility that once the U.S. had the capability to plant the Stars and Stripes on the moon that funding would be slashed.

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (2)

Kuruk (631552) | about 3 years ago | (#37556532)

<quote>

<quote><p>"In another universe (Arthur C. Clarke's 2011), it would be on its way to Europa by now.</p></quote>

<p>Clarke naively believed NASA and the U.S. government when they said that the space race WASN'T just a Cold War pissing contest. He never figured in the possibility that once the U.S. had the capability to plant the Stars and Stripes on the moon that funding would be slashed.</p></quote>

All the better. Bring on a new pissing contest. Good on China reaching for the stars. It not like we want too.

military equipment (2, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 3 years ago | (#37556592)

A few years ago the funding would have come as soon as China would start adding their military equipment there, too. Ironically, however, now China will just pull the financial rug under the US, or just squeeze those hairy a bit harder.

Re:military equipment (0)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37556828)

Hey, it's not like we can make those LCD TV's here anymore. Walmart will stop any war.

Re:military equipment (1)

Kuruk (631552) | about 3 years ago | (#37556966)

Indeed. And they will bend over to do it as long as there is profit.

Re:military equipment (1)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | about 3 years ago | (#37557598)

This is as tired of an argument as "they hate us for our freedom."

What China and the US have is the economic version of mutually-assured destruction.

China will be pulling no rug out from under the US. They're as fucked as we are.

Re:military equipment (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37557848)

They're as fucked as we are.

Why? They have all of Latin America, India and Africa to sell to. It doesn't take long for those countries to catch up the US when economic growth in the US is virtually nil. The US by no means has the largest population in the world, so its economic importance can only shrink over time as others grow. Haven't you noticed how China has been very active signing trade agreements all over South and Central America lately? And with none of those bullshit "sign here but also you have to change your laws to match ours" clauses either.

Re:military equipment (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 3 years ago | (#37558466)

Because they pin their currency to ours?

We've asked them not to, it kind of buggers up trade over here. But it keeps their workers undercutting ours, and China is riding the gravy train of manufacturing, so they're sticking with it. So even when our currency takes a hit and looks like a terrible investment, China still buys up our debt. Because if our dollar really tanks, theirs will too.

Eventually they'll have to unpin it. Their currency will then suffer some massive fluctuation as it corrects itself and the market reacts. They'll have a hard time of it. And after that, maybe the USA will be able to sell goods to china for a profit.

Re:military equipment (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37558526)

You are a little bit behind [reuters.com] on the news. The Yuan hasn't been pegged [bloomberg.com] to the dollar for a while. The US doesn't like this, but they can no longer stop it. Of course this never makes the mainstream "AMERICA FUCK YEAH" news channels.

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (2)

doconnor (134648) | about 3 years ago | (#37556656)

In Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 (not 2011), which was written before the cold war ended, the cold war was still going on into 2010 and they where still pissing away.

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (1)

tgd (2822) | about 3 years ago | (#37556796)

Exactly. Part of the point of the story was the fact that the situation around Jupiter led to some (tense, somewhat hostile) partnerships between the US and the USSR.

In the book there was a three-way cold war between USSR, China and the US.

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557864)

So maybe the human race would have been better off had the Cold War continued?

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (1)

cornface (900179) | about 3 years ago | (#37557090)

In most of the sci-fi featuring near-future space travel in the era before we actually went to space it was rare to find an author who even considered that it would be a government monopoly that got us there.

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557648)

In most of the sci-fi featuring near-future space travel in the era before we actually went to space it was rare to find an author who even considered that it would be a government monopoly that got us there.

Punctuation man, do know it?

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (1)

cornface (900179) | about 3 years ago | (#37558146)

Oh, no, I, missed, a, comma.

(You missed an entire word, though.)

(And you are garbage.)

Re:Clarke's naive miscalculation (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#37557908)

Funding was slashed in 1968-'72 because of the increasing cost of the Vietnam War and costs of implementing LBJ's Great Society program. The Democratic Senators who had the power to cut NASA (like Mondale), went out of their way to go after it's funding for the Great Society programs. By the time Nixon took the White House, he ramped up Vietnam to force the North to the peace talks (which worked by late 1972) and the Democrats hated him, so there was very little he could push.

We are lucky Congress didn't close NASA down from '72-'77

Good for them (2)

LordNacho (1909280) | about 3 years ago | (#37556476)

The Chinese seem willing to spend the money on space tech. Someones gotta carry the flag. Unbelievable how long it's been since people were walking the moon.

Re:Good for them (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 3 years ago | (#37556630)

The states had the money, too.
But they just spent it on more important things:
-Liberating oil in Irak.
-Molesting the terrorists out of our shorts.
-Covering rich people for bad bets in the stock market

Re:Good for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557190)

Don't forget: in 2010, we spent nearly 1 trillion on welfare (not counting social security), 164 billion on interest on the debt, and about 19 billion on NASA. It's more than just war and bailouts - our 'food stamp nation' is a pretty big drain as well.

Re:Good for them (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37557446)

Soviet Union spent most of its budget on welfare (being a socialist state and all), which didn't prevent it from having a developed space program.

China also has state welfare programs such as unemployment insurance and medical care.

You do need a healthy population for it to be productive, and you do need it to be productive to provide the industrial base for space exploration. The problem isn't with social welfare as such, it's about doing it right.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37558040)

And lo, their economy was decimated. It's what lost them the cold war.

But I love the whole, "No, no... it works... it's just that nobody has ever done it right" approach.

Re:Good for them (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#37558120)

Neither China or the Soviet Union made it to the moon, neither China, the Soviet Union or Russian Federation have send deep space probes to the outer planets.

While the Soviets landed on Mars and Venus, they never mapped those planets, the Chinese and Russians have not landed rovers on Mars, had probes orbit Jupiter or Saturn, only the US and ESA have accomplished extended scientific exploration of Mars.

When the Chinese or Russia get four space probes past the orbit of Pluto, land on Titan, get rovers on Mars and drop a probe into Jupiter, then they are up in the same tier the US is.

Re:Good for them (0)

capedgirardeau (531367) | about 3 years ago | (#37558382)

The 1 trillion on welfare is just trying to rile up dislike for the poor and is wrong. It is more like 200 billion. And if you don't want to spend that money on trying to help people back to work or preventing them from being homeless, it will cost you a lot more down the road when you are suffering the losses from crime, the lost property values and the costs to incarcerate people among other things. It is in our best interest to have programs to help those in poverty as we will pay one way or another eventually.

For a much more accurate analysis of spending on welfare programs, well sourced please see:

http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/ [ourdime.us]

Re:Good for them (1)

Danathar (267989) | about 3 years ago | (#37558144)

No. The U.S. Federal Government had the money too, not the "States". There is a difference.

Re:Good for them (1)

Kuruk (631552) | about 3 years ago | (#37556720)

I agree 100%.

For instance. The moon is not important to the USA anymore. Been there done that rite ?

Lets see what happen when china populates it.

Good for them.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557014)

You think Chinese are immune to having no air, no water, no soil and no magnetosphere? There's no one on the Moon because it's not possible, it makes no sense and it benefits no one. Let go of the sci-fi, it's like a religion with you guys or what!?

Re:Good for them (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 3 years ago | (#37557744)

It is quite possible to populate the moon. You are just an ignorant jerk who prefers to poo poo everything everyone else pushes for.

No air? Bring some up or make it there from the plentiful water in the poles
No water? Bull shit, we have found enough water on the moon for a base
No soil? What exactly is the moon made of than?
No magnetosphere? So what? Build the habitats underground, and the food production areas in domes.

It benefits many things on Earth, and would provide more living space, and the ability to expand further into space, which benefits everyone here on Earth.

Re:Good for them (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37557930)

it benefits no one.

I know a few astronomers who would give their right testicle to be able to put a telescope somewhere where there is no air and no magnetosphere. And preferably on the far side of the moon to get rid of light from that pesky blue thing in the middle of the sky. Don't write off a "moon base" just yet, there are legitimate uses.

Re:Good for them (1)

2short (466733) | about 3 years ago | (#37558392)

L2 is better and cheaper. Besides, putting a telescope on the moon is no reason to put people there. Astronomers today largely use remotely controlled telescopes on the other side of the earth just to avoid having to work the night shift.

Re:Good for them (3, Insightful)

Bardwick (696376) | about 3 years ago | (#37556754)

It's actually free. Just using interest on all the money that they've loaned out.. So hey, why not? heh.

Re:Good for them (0)

tgd (2822) | about 3 years ago | (#37556812)

Well, strictly speaking, they're spending the US's money, thanks to the massive trade imbalance.

So buy from China, at least your "tax" dollars are going to something worthwhile.

Re:Good for them (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | about 3 years ago | (#37557344)

Mate, if you spend money on goods and services from China, that money isn't yours anymore. It may have come from you, but you swapped it for iPhones.

Anyway, I'm not a taxpayer in either state. I just want to see someone carrying human technology forward.

Re:Good for them (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#37558000)

There is a historical precedence for going somewhere and then not going back for a while.

The first English colony in North America was established in 1585 at Roanoke, a second voyage there in 1590 found it missing, there was not an attempt by the English to colonize North America again until 1607. And going to North America from western Europe was much, much easier than going from the Earth to the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_colonization_of_North_America [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good for them (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | about 3 years ago | (#37558272)

I suppose that makes sense. Pioneering journeys can be expensive.

Re:Good for them (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#37558450)

Imagine how bad manned space flight would have been defunded if the US had spent a zillion dollars on a manned lunar station and have everyone there die like Roanoke* did.

* - no one really knows what happened to Roanoke, but there is no wandering off with Lunar tribe and disappearing on the Moon.

docking port (2)

hackingbear (988354) | about 3 years ago | (#37556544)

Are the docking ports compatible?

I read many years ago on Chinese media (can't find the source anymore) when they first launched Shenzhou that the docking port is imported from Russia for the explicit goal of compatibility with other vehicles as the Russian design is now the de factor standard.

Re:docking port (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37556648)

Wouldn't it be great if China and Russia form a space alliance to put pressure on American hostility/bullying. After all, he who controls the high ground has the upper hand.

Re:docking port (1)

vakuona (788200) | about 3 years ago | (#37556900)

Russia distrusts China more than they distrust America. They are bloody neighbours too, so are more likely to have a conflict than Russia-USA or USA-China.

Re:docking port (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37557486)

Doesn't stop Russia from selling [blogspot.com] its latest and greatest weapons to China.

Re:docking port (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 3 years ago | (#37558206)

That is because of a war between Russia and China the Russians know their only survival will be tanks and as a last resort nuclear strikes.

Note that what the Russians don't sell China are advanced tanks like T-90, T-80, advanced anti-tank weapons, advanced APCs, supersonic bombers or advanced armor defenses.

Tanks, armor defenses, and anti-tank weapons are what (to Soviet doctrine) win wars, not fighters and not SAMs

Re:docking port (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | about 3 years ago | (#37558432)

The Russians are selling T-90s to plenty of people. The Chinese aren't buying, because they prefer the indigenous Type 99 and Type 96 instead.

Re:docking port (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37557972)

Even though they are unquiet neighbors I think they can't afford to be hostile in the same way as the US and Canada can't be hostile. When you share such a vast land border it's best to be friends because just the cost of policing it in a serious fashion would break both nations.

Re:docking port (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | about 3 years ago | (#37557994)

Uh, Russia's been doing joint military exercises with China for quite a while. I'd say relations are pretty good.

Re:docking port (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37556650)

de facto

Re:docking port (1)

DrData99 (916924) | about 3 years ago | (#37556926)

De Chinese Factory...

Re:docking port (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37557990)

he almost said defector - maybe it was a Freudian slip?

Re:docking port (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37558016)

The "de factor standard", yes.
As in, the factory standard, yes?

Made in China (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37556580)

Is it going to break after 2 or 3 uses like every piece of junk made in China?

I was going to say that I would not hold my breath but that may not be an option for anybody that uses it.

Re:Made in China (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 3 years ago | (#37556898)

Is it going to break after 2 or 3 uses like every piece of junk made in China?

Unlikely. That type of junk is reserved for import into US and EU. Chinese keep the good stuff for themselves.

Re:Made in China (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 3 years ago | (#37557302)

They keep the good stuff like the melamine "enhanced" baby formula.

I try to avoid any Chinese products because if they'll poison their own children with melamine what would they be willing to do to us.

Re:Made in China (0)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 3 years ago | (#37557616)

I try to avoid any Chinese products because if they'll poison their own children with melamine what would they be willing to do to us.

But you probably allow them to eat at the fast foods. Very wise. [/sarcasm]

P.S. The melamine story ended in 2008. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Made in China (1)

euyis (1521257) | about 3 years ago | (#37557662)

Actually only the best are exported, and in China "export quality" is a synonym of top quality goods. Domestic customers get only the second-class products and services.

Yes, it's quite hard to believe that...

Re:Made in China (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37558042)

What does it matter when they cost 100 times less, and you have thousands and thousands of them? The Chinese have never been afraid of screwing up [wikipedia.org] big time. There are plenty more Chinese. Very blunt, but true. No government anywhere really gives a damn about its people. It gives a damn about staying in power.

Orbit (5, Interesting)

Skylax (1129403) | about 3 years ago | (#37556602)

From my chinese coworkers I got the information that the module is currently in a 350km by 200km orbit at around 45 inclination.The finished station will consist of 3 modules at 20t each and has a designed lifetime of 2 years. It is basically used for testing purposes (docking procedures etc.) and will be manned by a 2-3 man crew with 20 day rotation.

Re:Orbit (4, Interesting)

ZankerH (1401751) | about 3 years ago | (#37556794)

Actually, you've got two different programs mixed up. The Tiangong-1 (the one launched today) will not form a part of the larger space station, and the 2 years lifetime only refers to this experimental module. Also, the Tiangong-1 will first be visited by the unmanned Shenzhou 8 spacecraft (to launch this november), followed by two manned Shenzhou expeditions in 2012. They're only planning to built the 60 ton space station by 2020.

Re:Orbit (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37557674)

Helpful, but can you get us the Kepler elements?

Debris-Reduction Incentive (0)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about 3 years ago | (#37556646)

Hopefully this gives the PRC a greater incentive to minimize future space debris so we don't see another of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test [wikipedia.org]

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 3 years ago | (#37556734)

I still think a small satellite with a couple solid state lasers could effectively nudge space junk into the atmosphere without being a threat to other space fairing nations.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37557700)

I don't think you understand (perhaps respect is the better term) the relative velocities involved.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 3 years ago | (#37557884)

Ok, so help me understand or respect how the relative velocities will make it so that they cannot be nudged with a little uneven heating.

I would figure that the faster it's going the less of a nudge it would need.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37558604)

The problem would be tracking the debris accurately enough... you have to hold the laser on-target continuously for long a long enough period to cause the desired effect, and unless you are in a similar orbit to the debris, you won't have very much time to do so at all.

The kinds of orbit changes required to line up with such debris is also very expensive (in regards to expended fuel) if you plan to do so to help mitigate that first problem.

Re:Debris-Reduction Incentive (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37558076)

I'm just wondering how you plan to get the energy to power said lasers. With solar panels maybe you could fire the laser every couple years or so... doesn't seem very efficient.

first step (2)

schlachter (862210) | about 3 years ago | (#37556660)

China has begun its own effort to construct a space station that will one day look like this....exactly like this.

http://nationalspacestudiescenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/space-station-iss.jpg [wordpress.com]

Re:first step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557120)

But it will be much cheaper!

Re:first step (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37558090)

And no one will be able to figure out the assembly instructions.

Re:first step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557574)

Sweet! Hopefully they get a discount on the SPP since we didn't use it.

Can it be reached by NASA? (5, Funny)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37556672)

Can it be reached by NASA

Unfortunately, no. NASA doesn't currently have a man-rated vehicle that can exceed about 60,000 feet.

The DOD can probably deliver a decent size payload to it, but their craft aren't exactly designed to dock in a diplomatic way.

Funny? (2)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37556840)

Slashdot needs a "Sad but true" moderation option. :/

Support! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557798)

I strongly support that message!

Re:Funny? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 3 years ago | (#37557814)

Exactly. We should have a "enter your own" mod option...

Re:Can it be reached by NASA? (1)

Kuruk (631552) | about 3 years ago | (#37556874)

NASA has been turned from science to profit.

Their new goal is to let Commercialization take to cost to explore space for profit. Once it happens they plan to jump on as customers.

In the mean time China will just go there. Should be interesting to see what happens.

Re:Can it be reached by NASA? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 3 years ago | (#37557410)

NASA is mostly not in the manufacturing business. Pretty much all NASA hardware has been made by for-profit, publicly traded enterprises and their for-profit subcontractors. There's nothing new to what NASA is doing, except that they are looking for contractors who are leaner and not as wasteful as the legacy big boys.

Re:Can it be reached by NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37558418)

Their new goal is to let Commercialization take to cost to explore space for profit. Once it happens they plan to jump on as customers.

In the mean time China will just go there. Should be interesting to see what happens.

Looks like it will work. China will bring it to market and sell it to the US, just like they do with everything else.
NASA can jump on as customers, if they could afford it that is.

Re:Can it be reached by NASA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37558412)

The DOD can probably deliver a decent size payload to it, but their craft aren't exactly designed to dock in a diplomatic way.

It's possible that the X37b could be refitted with docking equipment, though it's not manned.

It's also possible that the X37b could be refitted with less friendly, more kinetic equipment designed to cause, in a deniable fashion, an unplanned de-orbit or rapid evacuation of pressurized spaces. The diplomatic fallout for the US if caught would be catastrophic, but there's bound to be a contingency plan outlining scenarios for carrying out just that sort of mission. There are contingency plans for everything.

a new take-out joint in space? (1, Funny)

thejuggler (610249) | about 3 years ago | (#37556704)

More importantly, can the guys on ISS order take-out from the new Chinese space station?

Re:a new take-out joint in space? (1)

tgd (2822) | about 3 years ago | (#37556844)

Chinese take-out is an American invention.

Re:a new take-out joint in space? (1)

anyGould (1295481) | about 3 years ago | (#37557082)

So, can the guys on the new Chinese space station order take-out from the ISS?

Re:a new take-out joint in space? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 3 years ago | (#37557086)

Chinese take-out is an American invention.

Yeah, and as we all know, the Chinese never copy anything from America.

Can be copied (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557104)

It might be an American invention, but there are no patents or copyrights that prevents it from being copied. But, the Chinese will never copy anything, or will they?

Re:a new take-out joint in space? (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 3 years ago | (#37557658)

Really? You think Americans created the concept of selling prepared Chinese food to take it home?

Now I'll concede that "American Chinese food" bares little resemblance to the food served in China but I'd be willing to bet that markets in China were selling prepared food before the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37556726)

They're just copying everything the West did before. It's a symbolic gesture. Much like it was in the West.

Deja Vu (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37556830)

Another country re-inventing the wheel,

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_station#List_of_space_stations [wikipedia.org]

the wheel is hard to reinvent based on the failures.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37557438)

the wheel is hard to reinvent based on the failures.

I wouldn't exactly call all of those failures, if you look at the list, at three spent more than 10 years in orbit and more than half spent at least one year. Something I've noticed from lurking around this site is that everyone wants everything right now and doesn't quite get that a lot of these endeavors take phases to complete.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call this "re-inventing the wheel", just because WE have a space station up there already doesn't mean China wants to use ours, the same way we probably wouldn't just want to piggy back on China's station.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 3 years ago | (#37557866)

That chart needs a price column...

you just nominated yourself, D'oh! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 years ago | (#37558054)

Dude, it's Wikipedia...

Re:you just nominated yourself, D'oh! (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 3 years ago | (#37558338)

Except that if I added one, it would be immediately reverted. I won't do Wikipedia edits until they fix that problem.

Looks familiar (2)

pesho (843750) | about 3 years ago | (#37556906)

The schematic kind of reminds me of the old Russian Salyut station [wikipedia.org]

China - The replacement for the US? (1)

ALeader71 (687693) | about 3 years ago | (#37558124)

Yet another example of something the US can no longer afford. I wonder how we'll like living in a post-US, post-Western world?

Re:China - The replacement for the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37558464)

Learn Chinese!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?