Astronauts enter China's space station [video]
bbc.comChina has now done 6 crewed missions to space in the last 3 years. In that time, Russia has had 13 manned missions many of which NASA astronauts have hitched a ride on. NASA is still on the ground since discontinuing the shuttle program in 2011.
True, but is it not the case that NASA is focused beyond the level that's being achieved by the Chinese? I appreciate that the sls has its detractors (I'm from the UK so I don't think I have the same internal political perspective that a US commenter might), but aside from that the US government appears to have helped create a nascent private space industry that will yield real fruit in terms of both leo capacity and also beyond in the future?
My statements above were neutral but yes I do think that the US and the western world in general are falling behind. What happens if US and Russian relations break down? Privatization of the US space industry is interesting but has yet to prove itself. No private institution has achieved manned orbit.
Isn't it literally the case that if the US wanted to send people into space on their own hardware they could do it with months of lead time with the Falcon 9, Delta IV etc.?> What happens if US and Russian relations break down?Those rockets aren't "human rated", but are they (particularly the Delta IV) any less safe then the Soyuz or Chinese rockets?
I.e. this seems more of a "we have some rockets, but it's cheaper to launch with the Russians" rather than "we can't do it" problem to me.
We can launch things to space, yes. But we don't have any vehicles that have life support, abort, or re-entry capabilities. It would be a short, one-way trip.
So no, we really can't send anyone to space right now.
And the Soyuz is actually pretty safe, relatively speaking. Aside from two notable failures early on, Soyuz hasn't had a fatality in 27 years.
> We can launch things to space, yes. But we don't have any vehicles that have life support, abort, or re-entry capabilities.
Dragon has all three. The reason there are not people it right now is just that there is not enough experience with it to rule it safe. If the risk was ruled worth it, the very next CRS mission could take people up to the ISS.
While it does have "a life support system", this basically means ventilation and some environmental monitoring & control (incl. N2 and maybe O2 for repressurization). It does not mean that it can sustain a vertebrate let alone humans for a substantial period of time. Experiments sent to the ISS containg lifestock always have their own life support system embedded.
The integrated life support system is designed so astronauts can access Dragon while attached to the station, not to sustain them. It receives all utilities from the station and returns "used utilities" (i.e. consumed air) back to the station's systems. It cannot reprocess/regenerate the components by itself.
dragon V1 has no abort capability
dragon V2, scheduled to do its maiden flight sometime in 2017 will have.
Big problem for NASA: once they discontinued manned space flight, they now have a very hard time getting back into it. The Russians spacecraft is considered relatively safe because they are building upon a proven technology that has been "debugged" for decades now. NASA just has a prototype that hasn't proven anything yet, and I doubt it will be ready by 2023.
The decision to go for a lander with wings and wheels looked so progressive then, and looks so misguided from today's point of view. NASA could build upon decades of expertise with Apollo-like spacecrafts today in order to build their Orion. Having switched to a shuttle, now they have to begin from scratch.
The shuttle would have worked better without the military involvement (made the bird overly large) and pork barrel politics (solid boosters).
Observe that pork barreling is holding back any NASA options while the private companies are pushing forward.
We launched an Orion into orbit on top of a Delta IV, no? We could do that again and put people in if we were willing to accept the risk.
Orion has been launched once, on a short 4-hour test flight, during which it only orbited the Earth twice. That spacecraft is very, very different than the Orion that is scheduled to launch with humans inside in 2023. It's not a matter of being "willing to accept the risk" - it's just impossible. Safety is one of NASA's highest priorities, (if not the highest, especially after Columbia), so even considering doing such a thing would be unthinkable and is a non-starter. Even if you manage to somehow sidestep decades of a deeply ingrained culture of safety, it's just not even a possibility right now - significant portions of the spacecraft's design have yet to be finalized, and then you have to figure out how to manufacture it, and once you've actually manufactured it, it goes through several rounds of insane amounts of testing and revision before getting anywhere near the launchpad. Spaceflight is incredibly complex - even if NASA somehow managed to get a blank check (like it did during the early space race) there is still a very significant amount of work to be done that takes a very long time, no matter how much money you throw at it.
Aside of the fact that that was only a very early prototype, the Orion service module is actually not a NASA project – it’s actually contracted out to ESA.
And a crew module without a service module is not good for much.
If there were some extremely urgent problem, like if aliens showed up in orbit tomorrow and demanded we send an emissary, then no doubt it could be done pretty quickly.
The current commercial crew program is aiming for manned flight in August of next year. I'd give extremely good odds for that to slip, but 2018 is probably a pretty safe bet right now. And that's without a big sense of urgency driving things.
Manned flight meaning LEO.
Minutes, seconds, can make all the difference in some cases.
Months? We're fucked.
What kind of manned missions do you have in mind?
That's the point: we may not know until we have days or hours remaining to achieve them.
As far as I know, there's no party on earth who could execute a space mission on one month notice. And such a mission would have very little capabilities due to poor preparation time.
Whatever doomsday scenario you are concerned about, it's not a realistic goal.
And an impending catastrophe so urgent that it needed an immediate launch would be unlikely to leave Russia or China unaffected, so any breakdown in relations would be quickly put aside for the sake of [deflecting meteors/fighting alien invaders/saving the moon from being eaten by a giant space shark].
Sounds like a movie plot. This thread was going so well up top.
Either Russia or China could if properly motivated.
No, I very much doubt that. If there was a launch vehicle and space craft ready and waiting for integration, it would take about a month to get it on the pad and launched.
But there aren't any spare rockets lying around like that. And we're talking about a standard LEO mission, not a doomsday scenario one off special mission.
I think you underestimate the ability of the Slavs to Get Shit Done.
Do you know why they beat you into space? It certainly wasn't because they had a head start.
I love the idea of knowing exactly which failure scenarios are incoming.
Your universe sounds fun. Can I join?
The Western world isn't falling behind. It's just not so push-over ahead.
What China is doing right now, the USSR did in the 1960s, and the US did in the 70s (it had a ten year detour to go to the moon first).
While NASA hasn't done anything innovative in manned space-flight since 1980 (sunk costs, politics, no _real_ need, etc), they've done crazy work with unmanned spacecraft.
Think landing a _car_ on Mars (and then driving it around), launching routine missions to outer planets (and beyond!), being the only agency to get a probe out of the solar system.
Honestly, if Congress ever feels it necessary to launch someone to the Moon, they'll get it done in less than a decade.
And 'driving it around' is not as simple as it might sound, due to the time taken for commands to travel 4 light-minutes (minimum, and almost always a lot more). Feedback similarly.
No private institution has achieved manned orbit.
That's because manned orbit is motivated by prestige, not rational economic behavior.
Not really, there are commercial agreements in place between both SpaceX and Boeing, and Nasa, as part of its Commercial Crew Programme. The current estimates are that they will not launch until 2018, three years behind the original schedule:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/01/nasa-oig-report-delay...
I also have customers who have been sold slots for their satellites on Falcon Heavy which is now 4 years behind schedule (the first demo flight was originally meant to be 2012, with the first commercial flight in 2013, as yet nothing has flown, with the current estimate being 2017). It's frustrating for these customers.
I point this out here just because HN can have too many credulous website designers saying [to the effect of] 'No but Elon will be on Mars in 10 years so we should just fund private companies' and the reality for everyone in the industry is somewhat different. The Indian Government is currently about the cheapest and most reliable commercial satellite launcher in the world with its PSLV vehicle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle
Countering "there's no economic reason to put humans into orbit" with "but look at these commercial programs 100% paid by the government" isn't really a rebuke, you're just making the OPs point for them.
It's only commercial in the sense that say there's say commercial manufacturing of ballistic missile submarines. It's just an implementation detail of how the US (v.s. say China) does manufacturing for purely state-sponsored projects, not something indicating that there's an economic incentive to put people into orbit outside of government sponsored programs.
They (SpaceX at least) are not 100% funded by the government.
And to the extent that SpaceX isn't funded by the government they have no plans to put people into orbit as a goal in itself, only as a staging area for launching to Mars.
So how is any of this a counterargument to stickfigure's "manned orbit is motivated by prestige, not rational economic behavior"?
SpaceX has said that they expect a space tourism market to develop. That sounds like rational economic behavior, even if the tourists are doing it for the prestige.
That wasn't the argument.
Whilst it's frustrating for the customers whose launches are delayed, I'm sure they're accepting the delay for rational economic reasons, otherwise they would switch to an alternative supplier.
Well the reason could be that they haven't gotten their money back.
Research (especially pure research) and innovation are many times initially incompatible with rational economic behaviour.
That's one way to look at it. The other is that a commercial enterprise will not do something in the name of science if it does not make a buck.
Can't perceptions of prestige help actors make market choices?
Research is irrational?
If personal, economical gain is your goal, yes.
R&D is a rational choice for many companies, and their motivation is generally economic rather than altruistic.
In my opinion, cooperation in space is one of the reasons that US/Russian relations haven't broken down already...
Having people in space is kind of pointless right now. Yes, it's a low G environment, but ISS is in such a low orbit that people in my state can be further from me than an overhead ISS 'Astronauts'. It's even protected by earths magnetic field making it a poor test of long term space flight.
Absolutely wrong. Having a manned station is a boon for the research taking place. Without a station anyone wanting to do research like the packed bed or the docking and refueling experiments would require the investigating institution to design and launch a vastly more complicated automated satellite or to rely on short manned missions that would have more competition for space and time. Instead it's much easier to package an experiment and send it to the station which has a lot of equipment to support experiments and humans that can troubleshoot and modify experiments.
As for studying long term space flight the only thing it really doesn't provide a model for is radiation which we can model on the ground pretty well. You still get the other health impacts from microgravity that we're still trying to figure out how to effectively combat.
ISS cost ~200 billion, saying we can't do the same research for less is kind of a high hurdle when it's close enough for minimal lag, nobody tried, and people need a lot of ridiculously expensive consumables.
The lag isn't the hurdle it's making the robotics on the satellite to run the experiment. The closest analog is probably the robot that's used to service the JET reactor at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy [0]. With a station for some types of failures with experiments an astronaut can work around or heavily reconfigure the equipment to still get good data. Without a person up there every experiment launch would have to either just accept failures and write off the whole thing or include whatever system we're talking about that would replace the repair and reconfigure ability of people. Instead the various governments front the cost of having a person in space and it's way easier and cheaper for companies to package and run their experiments. It's a subsidy that opens up the ability to do microG science more easily.
Also there's no good alternative way to study the long term microG effects on humans other than a station since you need both space for people to live for up to a year and space for the various experiments on how to combat the deterioration that happens. Having a station up there also teaches us how to work and repair things in space and how things break when they've been running for 15+ years.
No, the ITER robot needs to deal with heavy loads, micro G means even small forces add up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Servicing_System did not need to be that strong. http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/kibo/about/kibo/rms/ was also relatively weak. Also, don't forget without people they could send 3x the science payloads. So, scrapping things and trying again really is viable.
Consider, fixing Hubble was a big thing, but we could have sent 3 of them up for less money.
As to micro G, we could send a mars mission with simulated gravity. Which is something we really should be testing instead of simply yet another long stay in micro G.
PS: Some of the most interesting recent experiments have been flame studies in micro gravity. But many of these can be done with 20 seconds of vomit comet zero g time or just a simple drop test like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ
> Consider, fixing Hubble was a big thing, but we could have sent 3 of them up for less money.
Not even close. It cost ~900M for the repair mission and the cost to build Hubble was ~2.5B.
>No, the ITER robot needs to deal with heavy loads, micro G means even small forces add up. Don't forget without people they could send 3x the science payloads. So, scrapping things and trying again really is viable.
Less forces only means that the motors can be weaker but it doesn't lower the overall complexity required, you still have to have X degrees of freedom to get an arm that can barely replace a human in limited circumstances. Telerobotics just isn't there or cheap enough to make it make sense.
> As to micro G, we could send a mars mission with simulated gravity. Which is something we really should be testing instead of simply yet another long stay in micro G.
We /could/ do simulated gravity but there's a lot of engineering issues with that that make it a Gen 2+ solution for a Mars trip or for a more long term solution like a Mars cycler. Just the size required for a spinning torus to be comfortable and provide enough gravity to be worth it would make it much larger than the ISS [0] [1]. There are other problems like dealing with communication equipment and docking which would want a stationary center which brings in more complexity with the seals between the stationary section and the ring. There's other options like a bolas but they're also pretty complex. Until then we'll need to deal with space travel as it comes to us which is without gravity. In short to test and build them we'll need either a large decrease in launch costs or a truly massive pile of money.
[0] http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/artificial_gravity_and_th...
[1] http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/why-are-there-...
> Not even close. It cost ~900M for the repair mission and the cost to build Hubble was ~2.5B.
There where 6 Hubble servicing missions. "this last Hubble servicing mission is expected to cost about $1.1 billion" http://www.space.com/6648-hubble-faq-space-telescope-repair-...
Further, 15 years is considered a relatively short lifetime for a satellite, so Hubble 2 and 3 could have easily had a longer total lifespan if they had kept them in a higher orbit because there was no need for servicing. Instead "the space telescope was designed to typically go only three years between overhauls."
AKA, they designed it to need 'fixing'.
26 years (it's still going after all because of the repairs done by shuttle missions) is a long life for a space telescope and particularly for one during it's time. Before Hubble most telescopes were only around for a handful of years before being shutdown.
There's a big difference between designing to fail and designing to be repairable. Even if it's possible it could have been cheaper to launch multiples but it's unlikely NASA could have gotten the funding to start making Hubble 2 in time for it to replace Hubble.
Granted, nobody died, NASA got great press from the Hubble, and it made the shuttle seem useful. And sure funding would have been harder due to less feel good missions, but easier from 1+ billion lower costs. So, I am not going to call it the dumbest thing NASA has done.
However, as to lifespan, from April 24, 1990 to Dec, 1993 the Hubble was significantly 'impaired'. If the next two averaged 10-12 years and the original continued to be useful for a few years that's well past break even. Especially considering the Hubble always suffered from a defective mirror even after the first servicing mission help that's not unreasonable.
PS: By designing to fail I don't mean they intentionally made it worse, just assuming servicing caused a wide range of problems. Sure, NASA did learn something from going though this exercise. But the highly political nature of the organization limits such benefits.
Edit: Yes, many telescopes had a very short lifespan though that was often by design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossi_X-ray_Timing_Explorer Mission duration 16 years, 6 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ultraviolet_Expl... 18 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOST_(satellite) 13+ (still up) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_Space_Telescope 13 years and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAMELA_detector 10 years and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Anomalous_and_Magnetosph... 11 years 11 months. There are also quite a few up which may or may not last a long time.
I won't take a strong position on the larger point of whether humans in space are worth it, but there are other uses for a space station than "being far away", "being low g", and "seeing how many astronauts get cancer".
>What happens if US and Russian relations break down?
Russia loses the ISS, because it can't be maintained without USA ground facilities.
Essentially, it will be the end of Russian manned space flight, until they build themselves a new space station.
Dude, we were already behind. The only significant US first in space was the lunar landing - the USSR thrashed the US with everything from Sputnik to venera to Gagarin to salyut.
The only difference is that you now have a window out of your propaganda bubble.
There's a reason that Chinese space progress is barely reported, if at all, in the west. It's embarrassing, and doesn't tie in with the deluded "west is best" worldview.
But we were not _really_ behind. We were about a year behind (if not less), and much was due to other American advantages: we didn't need huge rockets (which would launch humans into space) since American nuclear bombs were smaller.
The reason we don't hear much about China is because that don't do much:
Launch a man into space once a year? Land a rover on the Moon? That's 1960s news.
If it would be more serious, there would be a "Sputnik scare" like in the 60s, not silence
The big difference between the execution of the US and Soviet space races is that the Soviets produced the Soyuz - a very capable space craft and launch vehicle that still flies today. On top of that they pioneered space stations and long duration manned space missions.
The US on the other hand built an impractically large moonshot rocket that was too expensive to keep on producing. Then the US moved on the the Space Shuttle, which overpromised and underdelivered (e.g. did not serve the air force and get funding from there) and didn't provide a contingency into the future and had to be retired leaving the US with no manned space launch capability.
By going directly from the moon to shuttle, you conveniently forget Skylab.
Also, something about hubble.
I didn't mention them (but I'm very well aware of them) because they're not very relevant to the point.
Skylab was a great project and good utilization of leftovers from the Apollo program (although the Soviets did much better with Salyut -> Mir -> ISS when it comes to technology reuse). The end of Skylab was a bit embarrassing as it did not survive long enough to be serviced by the shuttle and there were no more Saturn launchers remaining. Although the damage sustained at launch/deployment makes it arguable whether it would have been a good idea in the first place.
Hubble is also neat (and a testament to the capabilities of the Shuttle as it was repaired twice), and JWST is going to be a good successor.
But there's still very little continuity in the American space program compared to their Russian counterpart. I guess it's partly to blame on the fact the the NASA budget and goals change dramatically when the occupant of the White House changes but I've read some news that they're trying to establish longer term goals. I'm afraid that whoever is the next president will again move the goal posts and set back the SLS + Orion program, which is closest to being the first manned deep space capable space program after the Apollo program.
My point of comparison is the fact that variants of the Russian Soyuz rockets and space craft have been in continuous operation since 1966.
No. America is better because it is America. You can't be better than the best, it's logically impossible.
> But we were not _really_ behind.
We should keep telling ourselves that. It may also help us convince ourselves that our arsehole is indeed the best place for our head to be.
Also, Explorer 1 had scientific payload (which discovered the Van-Allen belts), unlike Sputnik
Sputnik was the science payload - at that point the US were still saying it'd be years until orbit was reached.
Ironically, had it not been for the space race, we might have a more mature space program now, rather than one largely based on 1940s technology and engineering. They rushed to production and massively invested in a single model on both sides, rather than exploring options fully before commencing - similar applies to nuclear technology, insofar as thorium would have been the better tech, but was too late to the party to gain traction, never mind the weapon byproduct bit.
The US does actually have some other significant firsts in space, especially in the outer solar system:
- First probe to reach Jupiter (Pioneer 10)
- First probe to reach escape velocity needed to leave the solar system (Pioneer 10)
- Arguably, first probe to leave the solar system (Pioneer 10 or Voyager 1, depending on the definition of "leave the solar system")
- First probe to orbit Jupiter (Galileo)
- First probe to fly-by an asteroid (Galileo) -- passed by 951 Gaspra
- First probe to reach Saturn (Pioneer 11)
- First (and only) probe to visit Uranus (Voyager 2)
- First (and only) probe to visit Neptune (Voyager 2)
- First (and only) probe to visit Pluto (New Horizons)
- First probe to reach Mercury (Mariner 10)
- First probe to orbit Mercury (MESSENGER) -- also, to date, these are the only two probes to visit Mercury
- First probe to orbit two different celestial bodies (Dawn) -- it orbited the asteroids Vesta and Ceres. Also, the first time either body has been visited by a probe.
- First photograph of Earth from orbit (Explorer 6) -- not a particularly good image by modern standards, but a pretty significant first given the importance spy satellites have played in international relations since then (You can see the image here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_satellite_photo_-_E... )
Somewhat less significant by modern standards, but still interesting:
- First probe to send back data from Venus (Mariner 2) -- the USSR had a fly-by before this (Venera 1), but lost contact with the probe and so couldn't get any data from the fly-by, unfortunately. Mariner 2 didn't have a camera though.
- First probe to successfully return images from Mars (Mariner 4) -- the USSR had the first fly-by (Mars 1), a few years earlier but they lost contact with the probe before it actually reached Mars.
- First probe to orbit Mars (Mariner 9) -- also the first to orbit another planet. Only just barely beat the USSR Mars 2 probe by about two weeks though.
Some other interesting links on space history:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_exploration
With so much at stake, is it possible for all nations to play together and strive for the better good when it comes to space exploration?
Only in movies. A lot of people (including poliicians deciding about treaties and budgets) do not believe there's really anything at stake, and instead think of space exploration as a very expensive nerd hobby with some possible military applications.
And ironically those same people believe their silly little political games on earth are what's really important.
Yes! This is the concept between ISS! The idea that we are regularly sharing launch missions is a great work for international diplomacy.
> Yes! This is the concept between ISS!
Sort of. China is banned by the US government from participating in the ISS (or any other cooperation with NASA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NA...
All space tech is necessarily dual-use military. I'm certain the concern is that space launch cooperation with PR China will result in unintentional transfer of militarily relevant technologies.
Also, China is responsible for the largest single space debris generating event in history, from the intentional destruction of Fengyun-1C in 2007. That kind of thing doesn't matter to the politicians so much, but it was kind of a dick move, and had all the appearances of gratuitous saber-rattling. Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO when it is already perilously close to Kessler cascade.
That concern requires pretending (against all evidence) the Chinese haven't thoroughly penetrated US defense contractors' networks and personnel. http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fighter-hacking-idUSL2N0E...
We managed to cooperate with Russia, too.
> Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO...
I posit that's exactly what the policy forbidding China from collaborating with NASA is.
Nothing good will come of freezing China out of "international" space collaborations.
That's precisely my point.
Well, you could look at it that way.
Or you could also look at it like this: the Chinese have made it to the early-70s "Skylab" stage (minus the Apollo program that came before it), the Russians are content to stick with 1990s Soyuz/Mir/early ISS technology and their orbital shots. NASA has little to show of their manned space program since the shuttle retired in 2011, but still leads the world in robotic exploration of the solar system.
Hardly as dire a situation as you paint.
Russia and China can continue to push their space program with its costs simply because their societies are not geared around hand outs and pandering for the votes of those seeking hand outs.
Space is portrayed as having been there, done that. Worse, there are some trying to portray it as a rich man's place with the advent of space tourism and thus not a place government should be except to regulate it.
With regards to NASA, the shuttles, and such. Losing the shuttle was probably the best thing to happen to NASA long term. In the short term it wasn't and not because of the decision but because the management is so dysfunctional they don't know what they need. They have enough wants to fill a Sears Christmas catalog but none spark the imagination of the public and as such get little support.
They need a good spokesman, a long term goal, and some flashy steps that are achieved along the way to keep people interested and thereby keeping the funding alive. I would love to see a permanent moon settlement for more than just a few astronauts, more like a few dozen. Tie it in eventually with private trips to help keep it up and expanding...
If it wasn't for the national dick waving contest that we call space exploration, it wouldn't matter that NASA isn't from the nation running a vehicle project. But out of everything that NASA does what gets attention? The fact that it's not the nation sending rockets up. Why? Because it's not about exploration and expanding knowledge, it's about dick waving.
I laugh at all this talk about going to Mars to save the human race. We're just going to show up, if we get there at all, and fuck it up just as hard as we have on Earth. We're a species of idiotic assholes.
Well I guess we won't be sending you then.
I think you are being too harsh. If all the humans had all the information available all the time and not dependent on their community then it would be just a matter of character.
Humans are humans - and at least currently it appears we learn and improve all the time.
Aren't Chinese space travelers called Taikonauts? The title make it sounds like Americans are invading China's space station.
Taikonaut is the word sometimes used for Chinese astronauts in English language journals and Taiwan and Hong Kong. It's mix of Mandarin and Greek (naut = sailor in Greek). Chinese call their astronauts hang tian yuan.Indian astronauts will be vyomanauts.
Astronaut is still valid name for crew member of a spacecraft in any nation.
Is taiko short for tai kong (太空) = space in Mandarin in this case?
Yes.
I think so... anyways I find stupid the need to differentiate the "space worker(?)" by country of origin. They all do the same awesome thing.
The Russians invented the job, yet us Americans decided to go with Astronaut rather than Cosmonaut.
And we French people wanted to go with our American friends but didn't want to anger the Russian giant... so we went with our own "spationaute"
"Chinese space workers enter space camp"
After a quick google, I believe you are correct. The term doesn't seem to be very well known outside of space circles, though. Maybe that's why the BBC opted for the familiar.
I think it's fantastic to see another country having the ability to send humans into orbit.
Currently there are only two - Russia and China - so it's great we can all live vicariously through their achievements!
Initially read this as "US astronauts enter China's space station". That would have been interesting.
Valid confusion. Correct headline would be "Taikonauts enter China's space station"
Cosmonauts = Russian Taikonauts = Chinese Astronauts = Western
Can we stop this? It's the modern-day version of the victorian collective noun parlour game, and just as stupid.
Then we should stop using the inaccurate "astronaut" and call them all cosmonauts.
Astronaut is the original English word. Cosmonaut is a transliteration from the Russian word for astronaut. So if we're speaking English, we should use astronaut regardless of the country they're from. Otherwise we're forced to invent silly new words that nobody understands like taikonaut and what will we call Indian astronauts or whoever's next?
The argument is that Astronaut means "sailor of the stars", but "Cosmonaut" means "sailor of the cosmos".
As they’re obviously not sailing between stars, but in the cosmos, Cosmonaut is obviously the correct term.
Not according to dictionary.com:
"Astro- a combining form with the meaning “pertaining to stars or celestial bodies, or to activities, as spaceflight, taking place outside the earth's atmosphere,” used in the formation of compound words:"
It sounds like the Greek(?) meaning has been lost now in English, which is fine since it's a different language. Astronomers still sometimes look at other planets afterall.
According to that, literally means figuratively, too.
Sometimes linguistic prescriptivism is necessary to keep a language actually understandable, and to ensure it makes sense, and doesn’t just become thousands of independent statements that you have to learn by heart.
That ship sailed long ago.
Not obviously. If we're going to quibble over details, we might as well do it properly. The astro- root can also translate as a non-stellar celestial body, since at the time the word meaning was established, the planets were considered "wanderer" stars. Also, asteroids are not stars, but bear a related etymological root.
Cosmos, on the other hand, derives from the entire universe. Obviously, the universe surrounds us completely, but if you're willing to call someone in LEO a cosmonaut, I'm not certain you couldn't say the same about someone driving a car on the planet's surface to the grocery store to buy milk. Both are traveling through the cosmos. Where's the cutoff? Earth escape velocity? Solar escape velocity? Galactic escape velocity? People in LEO just aren't going fast enough.
I have no qualms about calling the flight personnel of the Apollo program "astronauts", as their goal was to reach another celestial body, even if it was not literally a star, and several of them actually made it there. "Selenauts" would also have been appropriate.
But since 1972, we have only been sending humans as far as LEO. Maybe "lacunauts" would be better for those in space, but not traveling to other celestial bodies?
What about Spationaut ? They are sailing through space...
Everybody is a bloody Spationaut.
> what will we call Indian astronauts
They will be called 'Vyomnauts' apparently.
Well, then don't navigate the astres, the cosmos or the stars. They only circumnavigate Earth and a few went just so far as Earth's Moon.
Let's call them Earth orbitonauts. :-)
Astronaut translated to Chinese is 太空人 which is spelled by the romanisation system in mainland China as tai-kong-ren or taikongren. Not the extra 'g'.
A quick search of matches in actual translated texts returns 'astronauts' as the term in the vast majority, and a few cases of 'spaceman' and 'man in space'. 人 'ren' in Chinese is genderless.
Taikonaut is however used by the Global Times and China Daily, tabloid and broadsheet papers published in the mainland. Am pretty sure the term wasn't termed in China, however. Otherwise the pinyin would be correct.
And Vyomanaut = Indian
Any idea what the Indian version of is? Hindunauts?
Are the docks compatible with Soyuz?
Chinese reportedly use APAS-89/APAS-95 system docking adapters (jointly developed by Americans and Russians) so they be able to dock with currently used Soyuz spacecraft in principle. They should also be legacy compatible with new International Docking System Standard (IDSS).
Emphasis on principle. Until they confirm that their intent is to be compatible and some testing is done to verify it, I don't think anyone wants to dock.
no.
It sounds like there are mixed opinions on that - the Chinese docking system is reportedly a clone of the Russian APAS-89/APAS-95 docking system (which is also in use on the ISS).
So it's possible, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer at the moment.
I would have thought there would have been a technology transfer amongst the spacefaring nations, so that just in case they could dock with each other.
That's basically the history of the APAS docking system [1], which was co-developed by American and Soviet engineers.
So why isn't it universal? As usual, XKCD has a compelling explanation: https://xkcd.com/927/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_...
Also, China was apparently banned from the ISS in 1999 in order to prevent technology transfer.
they are not "astronauts", but taïkonauts. The chinese term for going into space. Astronauts are for US. Cosmonauts for Russians. and Spationauts for Europeans.
They are astronauts. Your definitions are off
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/astronaut
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cosmonaut
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/taikonaut
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astronaut
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmonaut
[ Merriam-Webster doesn't define Taïkonaut ]
Actually, the Russian call their space people "Cosmonauts". "Astronaut" has been chosen by NASA, while the USSR chose "Cosmonaut". But you're right regarding the chinese. They are not called Taikonaut in their own country. But neither "astronaut". link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut Check the terminology section.
I just wanted to highligth that only NASA (or English speaker world) call their astronaut "astronaut". In europe, we call them spationauts. And in russia, they call them "cosmonauts".
The Russian calls lots of things differently than the Americans do.
Also, nobody in Denmark says spationaut. We say Astronaut, so not all of Europe and not only English speakers.
I do hear you, buddy. I'm french, and I do say "Astronaut" when I speaking about space. I'm just stating that in newspaper (not always), they say "spationaut". It's just how it's supposed to be said. But not everyone is following this. And it's ok. I was just highlighting the fact that there is a different name for people going to space regarding the country they are from. That's all.
But yeah, the american word it has probably won in the popular culture and in the day-to-day language.
Sorry. I didn't want to sound like Mr. know it all.