# China launches first astronaut



## Brian G Turner (Oct 15, 2003)

Yes - China has now successfully launched it's very first astronaut - only the third country in the world to do so.

They may be somewhat behind the US and Russia by a few decades - but the importance of this action with regards to a new chapter of the arms/space race cannot be underestimated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3192330.stm

*China puts its first man in space*

China's first manned spacecraft has entered orbit, making it the third country to send a human into space. 

A Long March 2F rocket blasted off from the Gobi desert launch pad at 0900 (0100GMT), and the Shenzhou V spacecraft was orbiting Earth 10 minutes later. 

The craft, carrying a single astronaut Yang Liwei, is expected to orbit 14 times, returning to Earth after a flight of about 22 hours. 

President Hu Jintao was present for the launch, and said it was "the glory of our great motherland and a mark for the initial victory of the country's first manned space flight". 

Only the United States and the former Soviet Union had previously sent humans into space. 

"I feel good, see you tomorrow," Yang Liwei told mission control from space. 

The launch was to have been shown live on national television, but Chinese state television decided it would only show it later. 

However, programmes were interrupted to announce the successful launch. 

The English-language channel CCTV-9 echoed the words of American Neil Armstrong when he became the first man to walk on the moon. 

"If these were small steps, then now we are taking a giant leap into space," the announcer said. 

*National prestige* 

Yang Liwei, a 38-year-old lieutenant in the People's Liberation Army, was only publicly confirmed as the flight began.

He boarded the capsule almost three hours before blast-off, cheered by a group of balloon-waving children. 

Once aloft, he was said to be "reading a flight manual in the capsule of the Shenzhou V spacecraft and looked composed and at ease". 

State television said he would be eating freeze-dried shredded pork with garlic sauce and fried rice during his flight, and drinking tea. 

The Shenzhou design is based on the Russian Soyuz three-person space capsule, although the Chinese space programme has made wide-ranging changes. 

The project has become a matter of national prestige, with Shenzhou described in the official media as "China's self-designed manned spaceship". 

"I will not disappoint the motherland," Yang Liwei said before boarding the capsule. 

"I will complete each movement with total concentration. And I will gain honour for the People's Liberation Army and for the Chinese nation." 

The area around the Jiuquan launch site had been sealed off, with soldiers stopping all vehicles 35km (20 miles) from the Jiuquan launch centre. From early on Wednesday morning, people were reported to be driving out of Jiuquan city, over 200km (125 miles) to the south, to try to catch sight of the launch.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 15, 2003)

And here's a picture of China's newest hero:


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 15, 2003)

I just wonder how long it's going to be before the government here int he States "rediscovers" the advantages of having a strong space program?  I read one article, on cnn.com, I think, that talked about the possibility that the U.S. might just cede space to China, but I can't imagine that happening.  As far as I can see, ceding space would be tantamount to ceding being a power on the world stage - maybe not immediately, but in the long run.

I also think it was intersting that last night on one of the cable news stations, the talking heads were questioning the stated goal of the Chinese of going to the moon within fifteen to twenty years.  It was only eight or nine years between the first U.S. orbital flight and the first moon landing.  If this flight and the following ones go well, I don't see why the Chinese couldn't do it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 15, 2003)

I very much doubt the US Military will be pleased at all of China's increasing involvement with space. Effectively, Washington is going to be concerned with the long term tactical advantages it has being lost to any degree.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 16, 2003)

An update from CNN:




> *China space craft 'returns safely'*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can find the entire article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/15/china.launch/index.html

I'm glad this worked for them, and I hope it continues.  Maybe this is the kick in the pants the U.S. needs to get interested in space again.  I think a lot of the reason that the U.S. space program lost its impetus, both in official circles and with the public, has to do with complacency.  The Russians haven't been able to do much beyond space station work they were already committed to since the U.S.S.R. went out of business, and the Europeans haven't looked much like they are interested in doing much in manned space exploration - just a space station, and just as long as the U.S. and the Russians were doing most of the work and paying most of the bills.  Now, maybe the powers that be will see that space isn't a dead issue and get back in gear.

Or maybe that's just my own hopes talking.  I've written here before about how I think we do need to be in space.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 16, 2003)

Absolutely - and complacency is always bad for progress. Maybe now they'll stop constantly trying to cut NASA's budget, and give the place the respect it requires to function as a means for breaking the boudaries of human existence and knowledge.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 11, 2017)

And now China are preparing for a moon base:

China takes aim at the moon with long-term cabin trial - BBC News

It is a little curious, now I think of it, that NASA keeps talking about developing a colony on Mars but I never read of them talking about them doing so on the moon. It's as if the USA has decided that, having been to the moon, it's not worth going back to - even to set up a base. Too risky, simply impractical, or a lack of imagination?


----------



## Vertigo (May 11, 2017)

Maybe not enough benefits; a large space station is potentially far more useful. A space station is in microgravity providing all sort so manufacturing benefits and it's easy to get to (relatively). The moon is another gravity well making getting to and from it much harder and more expensive. And I'm not sure there is much on the moon that we haven't already got on Earth. That may change if/when we start serious space based manufacturing as many raw materials might be easier to lift from the moon as opposed to lifting from Earth. On the other hand the cost of mining in a lunar environment as opposed to a geo one might well cancel that benefit.

Bottom line, I suspect (sadly) that a large space station would be far more useful and practical than a lunar base.

Happy to be shown I'm wrong though!


----------



## Lumens (May 11, 2017)

The Moon has water ice, which can be broken into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. That alone seems good enough reason to set up a base there. Its low gravity means launching is cheaper too. Maybe an orbiting lunar space station can recieve the raw materials for passing missions to Mars?

I reckon the Moon is vital for long term missions. Seems to me that NASA is thinking shorter term, ie being "first"...?


----------



## Vertigo (May 12, 2017)

I agree long term the fuel processing possibilities from the moon are good but short term an awful lot of hydrogen and oxygen can be lifted to Earth orbit for a lot less then the cost of building a base on Mars. Even longer term Dropping a few asteroids into Earth orbit might actually end up cheaper than mining the moon. Why operate in another, albeit smaller, gravity well if you can operate with effectively no gravity well at all?


----------



## SilentRoamer (May 12, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> I agree long term the fuel processing possibilities from the moon are good but short term an awful lot of hydrogen and oxygen can be lifted to Earth orbit for a lot less then the cost of building a base on Mars. Even longer term Dropping a few asteroids into Earth orbit might actually end up cheaper than mining the moon. Why operate in another, albeit smaller, gravity well if you can operate with effectively no gravity well at all?



I for one don't fancy having asteroids dropped into earth orbit. Not only that but it might be cheaper to actually mine them in situ rather than the energy requirements to drag them out of their own orbits and move them into a stable earth orbit. If you are mining them in space anyway then mine them in situ. 



Brian G Turner said:


> And now China are preparing for a moon base:
> 
> China takes aim at the moon with long-term cabin trial - BBC News
> 
> It is a little curious, now I think of it, that NASA keeps talking about developing a colony on Mars but I never read of them talking about them doing so on the moon. It's as if the USA has decided that, having been to the moon, it's not worth going back to - even to set up a base. Too risky, simply impractical, or a lack of imagination?



I think NASA is on record as stating that they wouldn't do the moon landing again because the cost would essentially be total budget allocation and wouldn't actually further them in any way. Essentially the "next step" has always been Mars.


----------



## Vertigo (May 12, 2017)

SilentRoamer said:


> I for one don't fancy having asteroids dropped into earth orbit. Not only that but it might be cheaper to actually mine them in situ rather than the energy requirements to drag them out of their own orbits and move them into a stable earth orbit. If you are mining them in space anyway then mine them in situ.


I take your point but I was thinking of ice asteroids providing fuel In which case having some here would be helpful. Though possibly easier to process the hydrogen and oxygen and just send that back. Other than the energy requirements it's not really any harder to drop a small asteroid into a planetary orbit than a spacecraft. And bear in mind there are quite a few asteroids already closer to us than the asteroid belt.


----------



## Vertigo (May 12, 2017)

Just following on from that I would mention that NASA even have plans for such captures: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130013170.pdf





> Currently, there are hundreds of candidate near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) requiring less energy than a mission to the lunar surface, yet the vast majority of these remain poorly characterized. More recently, Dr. John S. Lewis detailed how we can extract the vast resources available from our solar system in his influential book _Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets_, published in 1997 [3]. Asteroid and comet mining has long been confined to the realm of science fiction, but today the technologies are available to begin transforming this endeavor from fiction into reality.






> The mission concept is continuing to be analyzed by NASA as a possible future mission opportunity. The ARM (Asteroid Retieval Mission) mission concept appears to be feasible, but it is important to carefully identify and assess key mission challenges in anticipation of future mission development activities.


----------



## Biskit (May 12, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> Why operate in another, albeit smaller, gravity well if you can operate with effectively no gravity well at all?


A number of possibilities spring to mind, with added cynicism:

Working in zero-g, as I understand it, requires a lot more training and more specialised tools than working at reduced gravity.  If you're going to get into industrial operations, reducing the training requirements is probably advantageous.  If you can directly translate earth-based industrial experience, your workforce is going to be cheaper.

Going from memory (which is getting flaky with the years) I recall a number of reports that together suggest maintaining physical fitness in zero-g requires more deliberate effort and there are suggestions of long-term side-effects from extended zero-g, so working on the moon might cause fewer problems.

No environmental protesters on the moon.  OK, that's a cheat, because there won't be that many sitting on the asteroids either.


----------



## Vertigo (May 12, 2017)

However, I think, if attempting industrial scale processing, we would probably be looking at a space station with at least it's habitation area rotating to provided artificial gravity.


----------



## Lumens (May 12, 2017)

There's also radiation to take into consideration. Digging into the lunar surface could make a lot of sense, although that could of course happen around Mars (or in asteroids) too.

Also there is the (still speculative?) prospect of Helium 3 resources on the moon, some wonder material for energy, which it seems China is interested in. 

I wish I understood more of all this, it is exciting to read about.


----------



## SilentRoamer (May 12, 2017)

Biskit said:


> Going from memory (which is getting flaky with the years) I recall a number of reports that together suggest maintaining physical fitness in zero-g requires more deliberate effort and there are suggestions of long-term side-effects from extended zero-g, so working on the moon might cause fewer problems.



Human biology is optimized for operating in 1G environments. Odd things start happening when exposed to zero G for long periods of time. To take a minor (but indicative of the larger issues) problem - astronauts were getting a lot of issues with deformed eyeballs, turns out that in zero G there are likely to be high fluid build ups in places that don't normally experience them so the brain ends up squashing the eyeballs.

Lovely! 

Muscle atrophy is an obvious one. Even just sitting down in a chair your muscles and bones and other structures still need to hold you upright. Ill tell that to my wife next time she moans at me:

Me: I will have you know it takes great and tremendous energies to sit here love. Im fighting the gravity of an entire planet, with my butt.


----------

