[HN Gopher] As last module docks, China completes its space station
___________________________________________________________________
As last module docks, China completes its space station
Author : rippercushions
Score : 265 points
Date : 2022-11-01 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| zokier wrote:
| The frustrating aspect for me about CNSA is how little PR they
| do, at least towards west although I don't think even inside
| China they are giving that much extra info on the missions and
| their progress. Just compare the media spectacle around e.g.
| Perseverance rover wrt Tianwen-1. Sure NASA has more material to
| work with but still we are getting frequent mission updates and
| almost daily new pics to ogle; meanwhile there are just couple of
| press photos from Zhurong and barely any news gets around.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| 50 years late to the space race..
| Ekaros wrote:
| They might be late to join, but when the rest of competition
| have started racing towards start line... Does it matter.
| vl wrote:
| [LOGIN REQUIRED]
| rongopo wrote:
| A small step for China, a big step for humanity.
| steve76 wrote:
| ROTMetro wrote:
| garmanarnar wrote:
| Whataboutism
| ROTMetro wrote:
| How? I thought the topic was China and 'progress'? I didn't
| 'whatabout' a different country and their actions to divert
| from that topic, did I? But nice way to distract from
| actually addressing what China brings to the modern world.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| hunglee2 wrote:
| couldn't agree more. Space is like therapy these days, earth
| being what it is right now. lets hope we - as a species - can
| get it together and truly explore what's out there, as
| collaborators and colleagues
| jedberg wrote:
| I agree with you but I suspect you're blaming the wrong nation.
| China built their own station because the USA won't allow them
| to join ISS.
| dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote:
| The USA requiring China to invent something on their own
| rather than Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V the USA's work is helping them
| grow up. It's a long-term win-win. We don't "blame" parents
| for asking their children to grow up into independent adults,
| nor should countries enable codependent behavior.
| daemoens wrote:
| Ok, it doesn't change the fact that since 2011, Congress
| has forbid NASA from working with and Chinese
| government/organization without explicit approval from the
| FBI and Congress.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| I'm sure you didn't mean to, but your comment was nationalistic
| flamebait that predictably set off a nationalistic flamewar.
| Please don't do that. From
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
|
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
| RobRivera wrote:
| the space race sent us to the moon. I'm grateful for the
| progress we have made and am eager to contribute my bit to the
| future
| fuoqi wrote:
| Are you implying that Chinese nationalism prevents the
| collaboration? Look into why China is not part of ISS, despite
| its desire to join. Spoiler: the US has blocked it. It's a
| small miracle that Russia is part of ISS, not in small part
| because the US wanted to get cheap access to the Soviet Mir-
| based technology and expertise.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| hulitu wrote:
| If you are talking about yankee nationalism, you are right.
| rvba wrote:
| Can you go to China and travel freely? Can you even own a
| business there as a foreigner? How many foreigners received a
| citizenship?
| CyanBird wrote:
| You are not entitled to rights or privileges in a country
| you are not part of. For example I wish the US and the UK
| would stop spying on me with their dragnet, but alas I am
| not a US citizen so I am not privileged to be protected by
| their own laws
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Nationalism, any forms of it are evil. There is no "benign
| nationalism" that is just people being proud for their country
| or whatever. It all leads to sorrow and, ultimately,
| destruction. Paraphrasing Voltaire, we should squash it. It is
| not beneficial and people can absolutely "reach for the stars"
| in all senses of it without nationalism. The only thing
| nationalism, in any form, moderate or extreme, is good for is
| for a small group of people (government, etc.) controlling a
| larger group of people (country's population) by irrational
| means.
|
| Unfortunately, we won't see anti-nationalism coming to the same
| level as atheism even in our lifetimes. When I express this
| kind of view even the more liberal people in my circle say this
| is too extreme.
|
| I am not advocating for any kind of anarchism, or saying
| government is bad. Nationalism is.
| pphysch wrote:
| > Unfortunately, we won't see anti-nationalism coming to the
| same level as atheism even in our lifetimes.
|
| Neoliberalism is clearly anti-nationalism, and it's been the
| dominant ideology for at least 3 decades. Neoliberalism seeks
| to eradicate borders, weaken states, and empower
| transnational corporations to privatize and exploit the
| resources of once-sovereign countries.
|
| There's been a "war on nations" since WW2 and the rise of the
| superpowers, and only in the last decade has the tide started
| to turn.
|
| A key fact is that Reagan was not a nationalist, he was an
| anti-nationalist that used purely performative, aesthetic
| nationalism to disguise neoliberal policies.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Yes, neoliberalism's failed economic model has set anti-
| nationalism back at least half a century. It threatens
| people's livelihoods by directly inhibiting the state's
| ability to improve the majority of their citizens' lives.
| Until the economic model is shifted, nationalism will
| continue to be seen as the antidote to neoliberalism,
| unfortunately. Neoliberalism and US hegemony are two sides
| of the same coin, so both of them are the biggest threat to
| human collaboration across borders.
| pphysch wrote:
| WW2 was a war of expanding genocidal _empires_ ,
| including USA. I'm not sure what basis in reality this
| "nationalism is evil" trope comes from.
|
| It happens to villianize non-interventionist nations like
| Cuba while excusing the enormous crimes of transnational
| neoliberalism.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Wouldn't that mean that it doesn't matter which nation is
| controlling piece of land you live on? So no point really
| fighting against invasions.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Hypothetical Nation A allows democratic freedom of expression
| and respects human rights. Hypothetical Nation B has a
| tyrannical government that censors and imprisons anyone who
| questions it and constantly violates the rights of its
| people.
|
| Nation A and Nation B go to war. Do you care who wins? If you
| don't care, there's something wrong with you. If you do care,
| people will accuse of being a nationalist.
|
| At the end of the day we need to distinguish between racism
| and nationalism. Some nations are simply better places to
| live than others.
| [deleted]
| hulitu wrote:
| > Hypothetical Nation A allows democratic freedom of
| expression and respects human rights. Hypothetical Nation B
| has a tyrannical government that censors and imprisons
| anyone who questions it and constantly violates the rights
| of its people.
|
| Both countries are, as you said, Hypothetical.
|
| > Some nations are simply better places to live than others
|
| Depends on the definition of "better".
| vasco wrote:
| I have the same feeling. Most people are quick to be anti
| nationalist shenanigans but then are quicker to defend things
| like "keep jobs for <insert nationality>" type rhetoric as if
| the people who are taking those jobs aren't humans of equal
| worth.
|
| I wish we'd just get done with it but I have the same sadness
| that it's going to take a few more hundred years at least.
| edm0nd wrote:
| I think nationalism is just fine. Its okay to love your
| country and fellow citizens.
|
| It's when it turns to extremism that it gets ugly and bad.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| The problem with "love your country and fellow citizens" is
| that even the most benign form of it becomes "my country
| and fellow citizens are better than everybody else".
|
| That's a great sentiment to have about your family maybe
| but not about an abstract concept, as it becomes as evil as
| religion and any similar instance.
| Steltek wrote:
| I typically define that as "patriotism". In other words,
| patriotism is loving your country and wanting to make it
| better. Nationalism is loving your country and thinking
| it's better than all the others.
| TOMDM wrote:
| https://archive.ph/2bXGR
| csdvrx wrote:
| Now let's hope it will inspire more countries, or even companies,
| to launch their own!
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I'd prefer countries to cooperate more. There's no need to have
| dozens of national space stations or even launch systems. Some
| diversity is Ok, but it's just too damn expensive.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I think that was the hope for ISS in general with the
| rationale being that the cost would be just too expensive for
| any one country to bear. And ISS, not completely unlike the
| globalization and connections between countries would force
| some modicum of cooperation.
|
| I think we were way too optimistic about ourselves as a
| species. Our cooperation does not last long.
| pharke wrote:
| It'll remain expensive if only countries are launching
| things. If commercial space launches continue to pick up
| steam it will get cheaper.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I'd prefer countries to cooperate more. There's no need to
| have dozens of national space stations or even launch
| systems. Some diversity is Ok, but it's just too damn
| expensive.
|
| The reason the Ariane (rocket) program exists is because the
| US put restrictions on European satellites if they wanted to
| launch on US rockets.
|
| I'm all for cooperation, but often times you need a strong
| alternative in order to negotiate effectively.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Perfidious Albion 2.0
| peter303 wrote:
| Like parts of the ISS will be privatized after 2030. Could form
| parts of new space stations.
| holoduke wrote:
| Maybe I am completely wrong. But whenever I see a US space launch
| I wonder if the Chinese do have the same enthusiasm and
| cooperation efficiency across all staff. In the US you see people
| from all ranks being super happy. Talking to each other etc.
| During a Chinese launch I see super strict hierarchy. People
| looking damn serious. How can you ever succeed without having
| motivated , out of the box thinking people. I can't believe the
| moral and attitude of the Chinese can ever lead to something
| remotely competitive to what the US is doing. Maybe I am wrong.
| burkaman wrote:
| Does completing a space station not count as success? Also,
| here's a video of this launch, people look pretty happy to be
| honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xcgT93s08o
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| You can't really judge other cultures by their outward
| happiness. That's really just a US thing. I think what it all
| comes down to is the probabilistic numbers game - how many
| clever people do you have hacking at various problems. Some %
| will succeed, and the larger the population the more results
| will emerge from it. That's China's fundamental advantage. They
| can still fuck it up though with poor political structure, as
| they did for several hundred years up until the 2000s, and may
| yet revert to under Xi Jinping. But they'll have to _really_
| screw things up to lose the numbers game.
| jorgesborges wrote:
| Last week I stood outside my apartment and watched Tiangong fly
| across the sky[0]. What an incredible time to be alive.
|
| [0] https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/
| peter303 wrote:
| Tiangoon flybys can reaches magnitude -2 now. Bright than most
| planets. Next bright evening flybys overUS in early December.
|
| The ISS, which has five times more modules, reaches magnitude
| -4 sometimes. Third brightest thing in sky.
| modeless wrote:
| For clarity, #1 is the Sun and #2 is the Moon. ISS is
| brighter than literally everything else in space, including
| all the other stars and planets.
| JonathonW wrote:
| ISS isn't _always_ brighter than Venus, which can get
| almost to magnitude -5 when things line up right.
|
| The ISS will still generally be the first, second, or third
| brightest thing in the night sky on a good, near-overhead
| pass.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| The page sits at "Loading" and the console shows "Uncaught (in
| promise) TypeError: navigator.geolocation is undefined".
| Yiin wrote:
| Your browser needs to support sharing geolocation.
| jason-phillips wrote:
| No, it does not.
|
| An uncaught error where you don't catch and gracefully
| handle errors in your promises is not the users' fault.
| It's sloppy workmanship.
| david422 wrote:
| Maybe you should email the site and let them know instead
| of complaining on some random forum?
| jdbernard wrote:
| I'm sure they'd be happy to give you a refund. :)
| jason-phillips wrote:
| The point is not that one makes available one's site for
| free. The point is that the quality of the work is
| sloppy, price of said service notwithstanding.
|
| There are many other ways to approximate a client's
| geolocation so as to prevent displaying an embarrassing
| error where one did not first check whether the object's
| property was truthy or not.
|
| Justifying terrible UX by saying, "it's free," is a
| terrible strategy, tbh. Free shit is still shit.
| thedragonline wrote:
| Uh, then don't use it? Problem solved methinks.
| mbostleman wrote:
| But, all moral posturing notwithstanding, is it not also
| true that if the OP just gets a browser or a browser
| version or a browser configuration that supports
| geolocation that they will be back in business?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's not just that the key isn't populated; it's that
| it's undefined. FWIW, my browser (Chrome) works on the
| site even if I choose not to share geolocation; I assume
| because the API is populated even if it then refrains
| from sharing.
|
| Your point isn't quite wrong but it also isn't quite
| right; geolocation is supported by every browser listed
| on Mozilla's documentation
| (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/g...) so if a browser isn't at
| least stubbing out that API these days, it's not
| w3c-compliant, and non-w3c-compliant browsers will
| sometimes just break on some pages.
|
| It is, of course, still incumbent on the developer to go
| that extra mile if they want to catch that last 1% of
| users, but users of exotic browsers get an exotic
| experience also.
| jason-phillips wrote:
| None of the browsers on my iPhone will render this site,
| W3C compliant or not.
|
| In any event, I would never tell my users that it's their
| fault that my app didn't check the truthiness of the
| object's property. Seems particularly hostile to one's
| users and customers, free product or not.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Ever written a website that checks whether `window` is
| defined?
|
| Technically, we should be checking _everything_.
|
| Practically, nobody does.
| robocat wrote:
| FYI: renders on iPad with iPadOS 16.1 (iPad so no GPS).
| Either way, you are coming across to me as somewhat
| petulant - you could be right but politeness has its
| place too.
| [deleted]
| 8note wrote:
| That's a monopoly problem, no? Apple doesn't actually let
| you use different browsers. You should try it on an
| android phone?
| ipaddr wrote:
| On my time which is worth $/per hour? That will be the
| day.
| modeless wrote:
| If you get this error, you intentionally broke your
| browser, or are using a browser which doesn't support
| standard, essential functionality. This is _not_ the same
| thing as declining or blocking geolocation permission,
| which _is_ supported and does not cause errors.
|
| This specific error means you deleted the standard
| functions that implement the geolocation API, which is a
| completely different thing. That's fine too, you're
| welcome to browse the web with a broken configuration,
| but you have to realize that it will break things. You're
| not automatically entitled to request that every site
| support your broken configuration. It should also be
| noted that browsing with a non-default configuration like
| this makes you an easy target for fingerprinting.
|
| Note that the site absolutely requires some form of
| geolocation to work at all. Satellite viewing times are
| location specific and without a precise location the site
| can't show you anything useful.
| jason-phillips wrote:
| > This specific error means you deleted the standard
| functions that implement the geolocation API
|
| That's a rather flimsy straw man. I did no such thing.
|
| > You're not automatically entitled to request that every
| site support your broken configuration.
|
| Goodness, now I'm entitled.
|
| I did no such thing; I just said that blaming your users
| for your sloppy coding is a terrible strategy.
| modeless wrote:
| You say you're using iOS Safari. I'm interested to know
| how you were able to configure it to delete
| navigator.geolocation, apparently without realizing what
| you were doing. I don't plan to support a broken
| configuration like that, but if you can figure out the
| cause then I could file a WebKit bug on your behalf.
| kortilla wrote:
| Why would it be on OP's behalf? If it's just a
| configuration that WebKit supports it's either violating
| the standard or you're not handling it correctly on your
| site. It has nothing to do with the OP at that point.
| modeless wrote:
| They are the one experiencing the bug. I can't file the
| bug because I don't know and can't investigate the cause.
| If they are experiencing an issue, and they find the
| cause, they should file the bug. But they probably won't
| bother, seeing as they'd rather blame me. I'm willing to
| file it for them, and that's probably better anyway as I
| have WebKit committer status. Bugs filed by me may have
| more weight as I have filed and fixed many before.
| ipaddr wrote:
| You really should be checking if the location object
| exists. Pushing the blame to another project is
| deflecting from a missing check that should happen on
| your end.
| modeless wrote:
| Regardless of whether you agree with what I'm doing, you
| should agree that WebKit should not delete
| navigator.geolocation in any configuration. It's a clear
| fingerprinting issue.
| xattt wrote:
| > Note that the site absolutely requires some form of
| geolocation to work at all.
|
| You should be able to specify a viewing location if
| geolocation is blocked.
| modeless wrote:
| > This is not the same thing as declining or blocking
| geolocation permission, which is supported and does not
| cause errors.
| agambrahma wrote:
| This is a fantastic website, thank you to whoever made it !!
| gorkish wrote:
| I concur! The street view is brilliant.
| Victerius wrote:
| I hope mankind can move beyond building space stations as a
| handful of modular small cylinders, and start building space
| stations the way they appear in science fiction: dozens of rooms,
| cubical exteriors, hallways, human height doors that open and
| close, stairs, elevators, hangars, a nuclear reactor instead of
| solar panels, and modules that rotate around an axis to create
| artificial gravity. And a more diversified color scheme than all
| white, which is sterile.
|
| I would like to see this:
|
| https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/futuristic-architecture...
|
| https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/04/77/75/80/360_F_477758033_1n2FBtz...
| dmitriy_ko wrote:
| It will happen after AGI singularity.
| elil17 wrote:
| We need a reason to do it first.
| Victerius wrote:
| More habitable space, more luxurious accommodations, more
| energy generating capacity, more space for laboratory
| equipment and experiments.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Here in SF, we have cars with bumper stickers that say
| "Leave space alone".
|
| So it starts, the birth of space environmentalists.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| More habitable space than the ground? Maybe some day but
| that would be a grim future indeed.
| bnralt wrote:
| You should check out videos from inside Skylab if you
| haven't[1]. You can see people jogging around the perimeter
| like in 2001. It was so big that they worried that people who
| ended up in the middle would get stuck and have a hard time
| getting back to the walls.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNKVnDvQY4&t=250s
| stickfigure wrote:
| To stay within the protection of Earth's magnetosphere,
| habitable stations are put in low earth orbit. Low earth orbit
| entails atmospheric drag, and bigger stations have more drag as
| well as larger propellent requirements to boost.
| vasco wrote:
| Even if the cost to launch would be way cheaper, that weigth
| allowance would be used for useful stuff like laundry machines,
| more "sterile" modules as you call them for more research, and
| potentially for industrial applications like factories to build
| low-gravity-only components and low gravity biomedical
| applications.
|
| Your vision is useful for tourism and little else.
| outworlder wrote:
| That requires a truly astounding amount of material. Unless the
| cost to place it in orbit gets within an order of magnitude of
| our current terrestrial freight, it's not happening.
|
| Best bet is to construct these things in orbit, with materials
| sourced in orbit. But now you have a chicken and egg problem -
| need to send an incredible amount of material (and people) in
| order to (potentially!) save in the future.
| Victerius wrote:
| kingkawn wrote:
| you're so excited to destroy peoples lives and end the
| existence of species, and yet you think you represent the
| future...
| diskzero wrote:
| Space stations and exploration can be a difficult
| proposition to justify to any economic system; democratic,
| socialist, communist, etc. For China to want to "beat" us,
| building bigger and better space stations would somehow
| have to align with the current and future five year plans.
|
| I would rather have China and the US pouring tons of money
| into space stations and exploration, but it is hard to
| figure out the rationale for such a massive investment.
| China seems to make rational decisions, those of which I am
| not defending. I am trying to figure out how rational a
| $500 billion dollar investment in a space station would be
| to Chinese interests.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The space race was motivated by competition with Russia,
| notably the imperative to establish a tactical nuclear
| advantage. We could conceivably see another space race
| between the US and China, but maybe not if "space"
| doesn't have the same tactical appeal?
| diskzero wrote:
| I suppose it could lead to a race to build a new
| generation of heavy lift vehicles or other propulsion
| systems. Maybe a return to the NERVA[1] engine! That
| technology was an interesting story point in the "For All
| Mankind" series alternative timeline.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
| counttheforks wrote:
| What happened to the US space force? I expected the US to
| have nukesats in orbit by now. Or maybe they do?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Presumably everyone already has access to enough nukes
| such that there isn't much of a point in investing in
| nukes, whether terrestrial or satellite? The arms race
| might lead toward building more, better interceptors?
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| I think you're seriously overestimating Chinese economic
| capabilities. They are still constrained by the same
| economic realities as everybody else, and -- much as we
| wish it were possible -- they cannot afford to just _do
| whatever_.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| "You can accomplish anything when you have vision,
| determination and an endless supply of expendable labor"
| detritus wrote:
| Presumably the problem there is that even a sea of
| expendable labour's useless, if what you need is a Von
| Braun[1]-esque figure and a paddling pool of engineering
| talent... .
|
| [1] Korolev, Musk, &c.
| post-it wrote:
| The type of labour needed to build a space station isn't
| expendable.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| You're afraid china will beat the us to aesthetic space
| stations?
| Victerius wrote:
| I want a country to make one. Any country. I would gladly
| pay for a ticket for a week long stay on an aesthetic
| space station. You have no idea how badly I want to live
| in the kind of futuristic future depicted in science
| fiction.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| You'd like to live in a world similar to Blade Runner or
| Neuromancer? That doesn't seem pleasant at all to me.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| > I would gladly pay for a ticket for a week long stay on
| an aesthetic space station.
|
| How much would you pay? Because the capital cost of
| building it was hand wavey thrown out as $500B and the
| operating costs of facility would be exorbitant.
|
| What do you imagine doing?
| Victerius wrote:
| Staring out the observation bay for hours on end with my
| favorite mood music playing through my headphones. Then
| going for a spacewalk, before heading back inside and
| having dinner with my friends in the rotating orbital
| restaurant. After that, I'll play an online video games
| with Earth-based players. To conclude my day, I'll return
| to my luxury pod, lay on the side in bed while looking
| outside at the planet through the port window, a mere
| inches from my face, and let my dreams, and the low humm
| of the station's machinery, take me to sleep.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Your best bet is VR.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Because the capital cost of building it was hand wavey
| thrown out as $500B and the operating costs of facility
| would be exorbitant.
|
| Yeah, estimated using the inflated cost of the ISS and
| other historic projects... give a tenth of the money to a
| private company _not_ bound to political pork interest
| like NASA /ESA and they'll manage it just fine.
| Alternatively, give NASA/ESA free rein to do things the
| _efficient_ way.
|
| The problem at the root is that, historically, space
| access never was a plain "we need task X accomplished" -
| there _always_ was the political interest of those with
| decision power to spread R &D and construction far across
| the country, so that everyone got a little piece (and
| every politician could claim of having brought jobs to
| their voters). That caused enormous inefficiencies -
| stuff needs to be shipped three times across the
| continent (look at Airbus supply chain, it's insane),
| there's an enormous amount of red tape and coordination
| efforts required, and turnaround times are insane.
| Meanwhile SpaceX has like two manufacturing plants and
| four launch sites and especially they manufacture a lot
| of what they need completely on their own so they don't
| have the typical delays you have with a classic vendor-
| supplier relationship, _and_ they save on profit margins
| of all the intermediates as well.
| bityard wrote:
| Beltalowda!
| riffic wrote:
| form follows function though.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Unfortunately it's about $2,720 per 2.2 lbs in even the best
| case scenario.
| erik wrote:
| SpaceX aims to reduce that by two orders of magnitude with
| Starship. It will be a big deal if they can achieve it.
| edm0nd wrote:
| TIL for about ~$3,090, I could send a 40oz of Old English to
| space.
| jotm wrote:
| As long as it's set on a collision course with the Sun.
| Although I'm not sure the latter would survive.
| Fatnino wrote:
| You are allowed to say kilogram on the internet.
| tomrod wrote:
| You're also allowed to say 2.2 pounds, and many (though not
| most) will understand.
|
| You're even allowed to be a pedant, as I am often accused!
| :)
| poooogles wrote:
| How have you come up with this number?
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| >For a SpaceX Falcon 9, the rocket used to access the ISS,
| the cost is just $2,720 per kilogram.
|
| https://theconversation.com/how-spacex-lowered-costs-and-
| red...
| aerophilic wrote:
| While I too look forward to that day, at least for awhile
| longer due to physics, we are going to continue to have
| "rounded cylinders". The main reason for this is very simple:
| Pressurized vessels. If you look at any type of air tank, and
| there is a reason they are a certain shape. The moment you do
| any type of "point" or "edge" it becomes a weak point in the
| design.
|
| That said... you can always make a really large pressure vessel
| and put things inside...
| pavlov wrote:
| A torus shape has no sharp edges and can be pretty useful in
| space if it rotates.
| aerophilic wrote:
| Absolutely, but now you are talking pretty large
| structures... which will take time for us to get there.
| choonway wrote:
| from a mechanical engineering standpoint, a torus is also
| easier to construct than a sphere.
| baybal2 wrote:
| It's extremely hard to join large structures airtight, with
| joints being stronger than the material itself.
|
| Soviet, and Russian spacecraft, and modules were traditionally
| made with extremely uneconomical method of machining the vessel
| from a single giant piece of aluminium to not to worry about
| joints, and their strength under space conditions.
| choonway wrote:
| The difficulty is not about joining large structures
| airtight. otherwise we would have trouble with building
| commercial aircraft.
|
| the problem is when you want to make something out from the
| absolute minimim weight possible due to economy of putting
| things into space, then you can't do with any connections
| whatsoever.
|
| The pressure of -1 bar isn't particularly challenging
| engineering wise.
| wainstead wrote:
| I think this company is highly optimistic, but this might fit
| the bill:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assem...
| yoz-y wrote:
| It's a scam ran by an ex airline pilot with no engineering
| experience whatsoever. https://youtu.be/lue35X4DFeQ
| Diederich wrote:
| Some more recent launch providers are focusing on greatly
| lowering $/kg to orbit, which is an absolutely necessary step
| for such visions.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| That will probably require finding an efficient way to extract
| building materials in space (possibly from the moon), moving
| those materials to where you want your station (probably a
| Lagrange point), and building with those materials. These are
| non-trivial problems.
|
| Also solar is far more efficient in space, without any annoying
| atmosphere in the way, it makes perfect sense to use it there.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Hopefully they solve more important problems first though.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Isn't this a logical fallacy? Rocket scientists and engineers
| are going to best suited to getting stuff into orbit, they
| aren't simply going to be able to go a solve a "more
| important problem". Other people are already working on those
| things and are likely specialists.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| It's true in a way but just pushes things back a level of
| causality: if we train more people as aerospace engineers,
| then we will have fewer trained people in other
| specialties. We have a finite supply of enthusiastic, smart
| young people to drive change. The best answer of course is
| "do both" and make sure more of our young people are happy,
| enthusiastic, and able to access necessary training and
| education.
|
| There are also skills that overlap: every welder that
| SpaceX or Lockheed employs is one less welder able to help
| install a water treatment plant somewhere. Here again, the
| solution is to train more welders.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > if we train
|
| People choose those paths on their own, not because some
| human industrial policy plucked them out of middle school
| and put them on that path.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| stefan_ wrote:
| Why, there is already barely anything useful to do with the
| current crop of space stations.
| grubbs wrote:
| Uhmmm...at least we get to find out how spiders spin a web in
| zero-g.
| frozenport wrote:
| If only we could put down our differences and use the Flat UI
| color scheme.
| wazoox wrote:
| For some pictures check
|
| https://english.news.cn/20221101/9c24720a1d7e4a71ac112a69572...
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| Wait, in order to build this, they've launched half a dozen
| rockets up with no idea where the boosters would come back down
| and land? That seems up there amongst worst ideas I've heard for
| a while, "good luck everybody else."
|
| Edit: didn't realize this would be a controversial comment; per
| the article, the "norm" is to have a burn again after releasing
| their payload, to "control" / direct the return. The Chinese
| aren't doing that, which has apparently lead so far to a village-
| damaging crash in the Ivory Coast. If the US has done a similar
| thing, if this was common practice in the past, I'm not familiar
| with it as I'm entirely naive on the topic.
| VictorPath wrote:
| Can you tell me what country does not launch their rockets in
| this manner, other than in test flights?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| These days the standard behavior of other nations is to keep
| enough reserve fuel and power to perform a controlled reentry
| of any spent stages or to design the vehicles such that the
| part that reaches orbit is small.
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| Per the article
|
| > Typically, the core stages of similar rockets that reach
| orbit fire their engines again after releasing their
| payloads. That allows them to be aimed at unpopulated areas,
| like the middle of an ocean, when they fall from orbit.
|
| If this is not accurate, my mistake. I took them at their
| word and don't really know anything more than that about the
| process.
| [deleted]
| wmf wrote:
| They don't have _no idea_. They know the boosters won 't land
| on any Party members. Russia has set decades of precedent by
| not caring if their space trash lands on nomads.
| avmich wrote:
| > Russia has set decades of precedent by not caring if their
| space trash lands on nomads.
|
| But still paying if something happens.
| jessriedel wrote:
| Each launch costs hundreds of millions of dollars. The cost of
| bringing the rocket down in a targeted way can be substantial,
| in terms of R&D, fuel, and mission constraints. And the risk is
| absolutely minuscule: Exactly one person has ever been hit by
| orbital rocket debris after _tens of thousands_ of launches
| over more than half a century, and it was a tiny piece (which
| is usually all that survives re-entry) that didn 't cause
| injury:
|
| https://theconversation.com/space-debris-is-coming-down-more...
|
| And of course, the launching nation is responsible for
| compensating anyone injured or who has property damaged by
| space debris, and paying for clean-up.
| [deleted]
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Very impressive! I didn't even know they were working on this.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Have we actually had the announcement that Russia is going to
| switch from sending cosmonauts to the ISS to sending them to
| China's instead? Or is that just kind of assumed, without
| announcement?
| twelve40 wrote:
| assumed? Where did you even get this idea? China's station has
| never been discussed in this context, and the current plan is
| to continue flying to ISS as is until '27 inclusive, then
| launch a new one.
| diskzero wrote:
| Does anyone know to what extent China has advanced the state of
| the Soviet technology that they have (I assume) licensed? I have
| been to the Russian Star City training facility, Baikonur
| Cosmodrome and been in the full-size Mir training module and the
| Chinese station components look very similar. I am sure getting
| good information is difficult, but perhaps someone here has some
| more info.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| "Licensing" is a strong word when applied to China. I'm pretty
| sure they have advanced a lot and may have surpassed Russian
| technology in some areas. As far as I understand it, they have
| more diverse launch vehicles, for example. Hard to compare what
| constitutes "better", as long as it works. I don't think they
| are as cost-efficient as SpaceX or even Atlas and Ariane
| systems.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I don't think they are as cost-efficient as SpaceX or even
| Atlas and Ariane systems.
|
| It seems unlikely anyone is as cost-efficient as Falcon 9
| with reuse.
|
| It appears to me, as an outsider, that Atlas and Ariane are
| 4-5 times as expensive to operate. There is probably plenty
| of room for China to operate more efficiently than that.
| Especially with their launch volume, which is second only to
| SpaceX.
| monocasa wrote:
| I can't speak at all to the space station, but my understanding
| from discussions over beers with American spacecraft MechEs was
| that Shenzhou resembles Soyuz (and is derived form Soyuz in
| real ways), but is noticeably larger. This has a significant
| amount of effects to essentially every aspect of the design
| making it pretty damn close to a fully indigenous design. They
| would've had to truly own every piece of the design and
| manufacturing to make those changes and end up with the flight
| safety record they currently hold.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| russli1993 wrote:
| Some of the features I know from the Chinese space station
|
| - Solar panels smaller in area than ISS but produces similar
| amount of power, indicating much more efficient solar panels
|
| - Ion thrusters to keep space in orbit
|
| - Automated docking of cargo and crew capsule. Semi-automated
| docking of large station components like the 23ton labs
|
| - A robotic arm similar to ISS that walk along the joint points
| on the station. It has expandable attachment system, allowing
| not only astronauts to attach, but also a smaller more precises
| robotic arm to attach that can manipulate external experiments.
|
| - It has a crew airlock and a cargo airlock, the cargo one is
| larger than the one on ISS.
|
| - It can also release small satellites through the cargo
| airlock.
|
| - Dozens of external experiment attachment points, some (maybe
| all) has power and control
|
| - What looks like pretty good communication links with the
| ground. Experiments can be controlled and monitored from the
| ground, saving astronaut time.
|
| - What looks like some advanced experiment equipment, including
| three very accurate atomic clocks, near absolute zero cooling
| systems etc. But I am not well versed in physics to speak on
| these.
|
| - It will operate a space telescope; telescope can dock with
| the station for servicing and upgrades, and equipment uploaded
| by regular space station cargo ship.
|
| I think it is a well-designed system, surprisingly capable in
| terms of research capabilities. As China's space industry is
| completely sanctioned by US and Wassenaar Arrangement, all
| technology here are from Chinese industries and local supply
| chains: materials, precision manufacturing, communication
| equipment, sensors used for guidance/automated docking, robotic
| arm, ion thrusters, solar panels, networking and control system
| within the station, even to the logistic system of building,
| launching and running the station. Then there is the whole
| rocket system themselves, 100% success rate thus far with
| CZ-5/B, CZ-7 cargo ship, and Shenzhou launch vehicle. And then
| the global positioning and communications satellite network.
| And then there is the whole research equipment part. There are
| millions+ ppl involved in all of the projects here.
| Grimburger wrote:
| > It will operate a space telescope; telescope can dock with
| the station for servicing and upgrades, and equipment
| uploaded by regular space station cargo ship.
|
| The co-orbit strategy is excellent, a short trip for repairs
| and easy to fit into existing schedules if something goes
| wrong. It's no James Webb but was never intended to be, about
| the same size as Hubble but with 400x the field of view.
| Guessing it will be cranking out the discoveries.
| tunesmith wrote:
| "sanction" is one of the dumbest words on earth. "to give
| official approval" vs "impose a penalty".
| diskzero wrote:
| Thanks for the super informative reply. I am hoping as there
| is more activity on the space station, that more information
| will be coming out. It would be nice to be able to see
| something similar to the ESA, NASA and even Roscosmos launch
| feeds and Q&A sessions.
| Jayab wrote:
| So then maybe a little late to sanction their tech to keep
| them from being peer competitors.
| kortilla wrote:
| The sanctions are pretty irrelevant when China has one of
| the best hacking groups in the world and every US
| corporation of relevance is strongly connected to the
| Internet.
| bestouff wrote:
| Yeah, because they are only this advanced because they
| stole US technology. Chinese people can't be as
| intelligent as american.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Eh, unclear. Nobody was trying to stop China from building
| space stations. The goal was to limit jet and ICBM tech.
| thebooktocome wrote:
| Sanctions didn't stop China from carrying out one of the
| most successful research and technology exfiltration
| campaigns in history.
| noizejoy wrote:
| Kind of ironic?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Also the guy who memorized how to build a power loom
| during the industrial revolution
|
| https://www.history.com/news/industrial-revolution-spies-
| eur...
| mattnewton wrote:
| I don't see irony; the US government knew the importance
| of these efforts first hand which is why they attempted
| the sanction at all.
| thebooktocome wrote:
| I assume I'm getting downvoted in the parent because
| there's some implication that I'm judging them for it?
|
| But I'm not. I was simply saying that the sanctions have
| nothing to do with their ability to obtain western tech.
| m4jor wrote:
| Sanctions do not matter to China. They will just have their
| nation state backed hackers hack into aerospace and defense
| contractors and steal their R&D instead. Thats the Chinese
| way and MO. Anything to further the Chinese economy.
|
| They have hacked nearly every F100 they needed to and steal
| hundreds of billions in IP annually already.
|
| - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual
| _pr...
|
| - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/china-state-backed-
| hackers-c...
|
| - https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/02/politics/china-hacking-
| espion...
| russli1993 wrote:
| US did sanction all of China's space industry, defense dual
| use industries since the 1990s, and never let go ever
| since. That is pretty early. And this is what happens 30
| years since the sanctions. But I have no idea what will
| happen in the future, plus the nature of industry and
| technology is also different.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| As much as it's a waste of duplicate effort, it's likely
| good for humanity and geopolitics to have multiple
| nation-states each trying their own approaches.
|
| Avoids path lock-in by exploring alternate solutions
| lines, and ensures that if one country decides to slow
| down (because politics) then the world doesn't lose its
| only leading-edge space program.
|
| Healthy competition for the betterment of all!
| skybrian wrote:
| That's way too broad, because it depends what it is.
| Surprisingly, it seems to be easier to build a space
| station than to compete with Boeing and Airbus.
| Dig1t wrote:
| Very cool, so are there any particularly interesting science
| experiments that they plan on doing with it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-01 23:00 UTC)