China Is Building The Post-2024 Space Station

1. Its all relative. The first Heavenly Palace Station was not much bigger or heavier than a Shen Zhou spacecraft; not quite as advanced as Salyut 1, circa 1970. This one might be a bit more advanced, the equivalent of bit later Salyut, maybe. No doubt in some time the Chinese will catch up more.

   1. One thing to consider when discussing size of a space station is the technology of today is considerably more advanced than the 70’s including the size of computers, systems etc. So even a smaller size lab such as this one offers more usable space than those of the 70’s, 80’s etc.

      1. While electronics can be miniaturized, humans need volume, and consumables, life support, the accoutrements of habitation, meaningful work which translates into research, scientific or utilization facilities, which in turn drives electrical power and cooling requirements, and these all translate to mass, volume and size.

         1. While true to some extent, China is being forced to make due with a smaller launch vehicle, so they’re no doubt pushing the boundaries on limited internal volume.

            The US, on the other hand, built its first space station with an overabundance of internal volume, simply because it could use a two stage Saturn V to launch a station based on a Saturn V third stage (which provided internal habitable volume and its trash volume). Skylab became a very large yardstick for which to measure future space stations against.

      2. Another consideration is what they plan to do in Tiangong-2. A huge interior volume isn’t too useful without a good plan to take advantage of the room. This is, in fact, a frequent criticism of ISS: Having large but under-utilized capabilities.

         1. “A huge interior volume isn’t too useful without a good plan….a frequent criticism of ISS:” This is unfortunately correct. When Station was first started, prior to 1984, the decision was made to proceed with the large full featured station, instead of a small one or two module, perhaps only man tended station that was actually recommended in the mid-1970s. Part of that decision was to expand upon the already ongoing space science program that would use the station. Fast forward 20 years, and new NASA management decided that it was only NASAs job to build the station and not to figure out how to use it, So they have this large, capable station, but no real plan for its use, any longer. The other constraint is astronaut manpower. Originally station was sized for 8, expanding to 12. Then they eliminated a lot of the habitation features, and reduced the logistics capability, so now they have a crew size that varies between 3 and 6. At gfull capacit of 6 crewmembers, they only get 30-40 hours of crewtime for utilization-that averages about 5-6 hours per crewmember per week. So the capability is there with the physical hardware but not the planning or the on board manpower.

      3. The Chinese got a mass limitation with the Long March 2F launcher of 8.4 metric tons to LEO. So until the Long March 7 and the more capable Long March 5 enters service, the Chinese can not loft anything much heavier than the Tiangong module to LEO.

2. Touched on important point – this station will be refuelled. Russian refuelling systems are robust but the designs are decades old – first tested on Feb 1st, 1978 ( http://bit.ly/2clUOUr )
   Hoping that Chinese take the tech forward and make use of this capability for their other space plans too.

3. Early illustrations of the first Tiangong vehicle show an internal transfer tunnel leading to the rear which was simply unused on that craft when it flew; the new spacecraft and cargo vehicle may show the utility of that arrangement, which would bring the second Chinese Space Station well into the league of Salyut 7, a serious and long-term station. China’s progress may be slow, but slow means sure – they’ll have a nice new space station when the ISS is reaching the end of it’s life (and with no replacement beyond PowerPoint).

4. I think it is important to try to understand why the Chinese government is flying humans in space. China is not in a race with the US, and human spaceflight has no significant military application. Science, though it is a useful secondary objective, does not justify the expense. In my interaction with people from China, three points are mentioned.
   1. Chinese human spaceflight builds a sense of national pride in the domestic audience. This is critical to the leadership keeping their jobs, since economic growth is inevitably slowing and the nation is no longer motivated by the ideology of Communism. The program demonstrates to the world that China has “joined the club” of the world’s leading nations.
   2. Collaboration in space can strengthen international relationships. Originally it was assumed China would be invited to join the ISS program, but when this was blocked by US politics, inviting European and Russian collaboration in a Chinese program became the logical strategy.
   3. Human spaceflight serves as a marketing demonstration of Chinese technology to potential export customers.

   1. Why should we help the leadership of China keep their jobs? The leadership is authoritarian an Xi in particular has been more repressive of late. They are also dangerously whipping up nationalistic sentiment over their claims in the South China sea.

      1. One of the factors influencing the South China Sea situation is the sense that many working-class people have in China that their country is weak and insecure, putting pressure on the government to appear militarily assertive. In my view the Chinese human spaceflight program http://en.cmse.gov.cn/ actually reduces such pressures by serving as a nonmilitary demonstration of national pride and leadership.

         I’m not suggesting that we should “help them keep thier jobs”. I’m suggesting that a future in which the US and China can work together with mutual understanding and trust would be better than a new Cold War.

         1. Lacking personal connections to any Chinese citizen, the situation in the South China Sea looks like the natural response of a nation watching the far-forward activities of an historically aggressive nation. Building a forward defense line makes a lot of sense.

            1. Gee, I guess it would be OK for the Russians to take the Baltic states and the rest of the Ukraine for forward defense! An international tribunal (in which China refused to participate) has ruled against their South China seas claims and if their claims were enforced would violate maritime treaties to which China are signatories. China may be particularly dangerous given their authoritarian government, high debt to GDP ratio (~30 when 10 is scary), sense of persecution ( not without justification given their treatment by Western powers and Japan), and their imbalanced demographics (countries with larger ratios of males to females have greater tendency to go to war or revolt), Keeping them off the ISS is largely symbolic. Whatever policy NASA is directed to pursue regarding China, I wish it would at least be consistent.
               Participation on ISS – no
               NASA grants involving Chinese nationals – yes
               reviewing journal articles with Chinese co-authors – no

   2. “Originally it was assumed China would be invited to join the ISS program, but when this was blocked by US politics”

      Actually, China blowing up their weather satellite in an ASAT test polluting LEO with debris was the primary cause.

      1. I would have to disagree. Possibly you might wish to review the long series of anti-Chinese policy directives issued by Frank Wolf and his successors.

         The ASAT incident was a convenient rationale at the time for a policy that predated it and has persisted for years afterward. I would also note that the US has blown up a couple of satellites in ASAT tests, and despite claims that there would be no debris problems, in one case the ISS had to do a collision avoidance maneuver to avoid a fragment.

         1. I agree. The ASAT episode was just one of many things that precipitated the current policy toward China. In the end it was Frank Wolf’s sinophobia that drove it into law. If the same criteria were applied to all countries we’d have been forced to abandon ISS due to Russian behavior long ago.

         2. Could you be more specific about US ASAT tests? The only ones I’m aware of were done during the 1980s. The debris would have decayed out of orbit long before ISS was there.

            1. NROL-21 destroyed 2/21/2008
               https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
               The claim that the ASAT test was only performed because the hydrazine tank would somehow survive entry intact and kill a human on the ground was, in my opinion, not credible and was more likely simply a rationale for the test.

            2. Daniel you should recheck your opinions – the U.S. has conducted ASAT tests before and saw no need to fib about it.

               Jim Oberg, whom I know and respect, has an excellent piece on how the tank could have survived and could have hurt people on the ground.

               But the best argument is: if it had been a test and we lied about it – where are the other tests? Why not just lie about Test 2 and Test 3, etc?? Are we thinking that one lie is ok but two is a sin?

5. I followed the link but don’t see the video there 🙁

   1. Turn off your adblockers.

      1. Thanks, though it turned up on YouTube eventually. As far as Ad-blockers go; my internet life can be a lot more hellish without them…

6. Russia and the United States were first in space, just as Portugal and Spain were first in the New World.

   1. More likely China and the US.

7. Competition is a beautiful thing… allow NASA, and the private sector, to innovate. Being pushed by China to forego restrictions of the FAR and congress is a good thing.

Comments are closed.