Talk:Tiangong-1/Archive 1

Creation
The information of Tiangong 1 was first declared by CNSA at 29 Sept., 2008. I created this page at 30 Sept. Constructive expands and edits are greatly welcome.

Greeneese (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a brilliant page, however there is a link to the economist, which if I may suggest is of a very poor quality. The webpage shows a picture of two men, and an empty spacesuit meant to indicate a missing american, yet one of the men present wears an american patch, making it a poor but hasty choice of photo by the journalist, and clearly intended for western readers.
 * More worrying is the suggestion that china asked america for permission to participate in the ISS, which is untrue. The Americans cause nothing by headaches for the Russians, and China wants no part of it.
 * The ISS is basically a Russian space station (Russian Orbital section) plus a poorly designed (it lacks an exit strategy) US orbital segment for the other nations such as japan and European nations. The Russian Orbital segment can fly itself, if the USOS is separated, the USOS would tumble out of orbit, leaving only the Russian portion.
 * The Russians are able to de-orbit their portion of the ISS at the end of it's life, they have both the experience to do this, having de-orbited many space stations before with success, and the ability to do so, having existing craft in working order to do it, however they have many plans to re-use some or all of the modules on their new space station, which is a factory rather than laboratory. The americans have no experience in deorbiting space stations, the only space station america launched by itself, skylab, tumbled out of orbit and hit australia. The americans also have no spacecraft capable of deorbiting the ISS at the end of it's useful lifespan.
 * Basically, this causes something of a headache or possibly bewilderment in the Russian partners as to what the americans are up to. However, the Russian / Chinese relationship is a completely different one. They are conducting at this moment testing and simulation for their mission to mars, along with European partners, basically everyone except the americans.
 * The Chinese and Russian hardware is compatible for docking, making co-operation much easier (US hardware is not compatible, and auto-docking is unknown in US manned craft).
 * Editor of space news magazine, put it this way "You see, the word “cooperation”, in global practice, envisages working together without money, that is, through the contribution of the parties. What we’re seeing now, as regards the carrying of US, as well as Canadian, Japanese and European astronauts to the ISS, is the pure provision of services.
 * Basically, at the time of Tiangong 1 an offer of American co-operation would in no way be considered an attractive proposition. Suggesting china asked to be included in the ISS project, in addition to the existing Russian/Chinese partnership outside the ISS is misleading. Linking to the article by wikipedia I suggest, doesn't uphold wiki's standards.
 * I think linking to the economist article clouds a readers understanding of the Chinese space program, and a better link is a good idea.Penyulap (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incredibly misinformed.--Craigboy (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Image
Should this image be used in the article? No source is given where it comes from but it is used on other wiki’s. (86.87.73.104 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC))
 * I took the picture at the international astronutical congress of 2009. It is a 1:10 scale model of Tiangong 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.228.57 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, apparently this is supposed to be Tiangong 2, the second phase "space laboratory" as it says on the sign. The picture is used in the Tiangong article and is captioned there as Tiangong 2, so perhaps it belongs there. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Launch
Launch is planned for 13:16:00.000 UTC (less than two hours from now). Pages will have to be updated afterwards.--Craigboy (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

13 minutes till launch. --Craigboy (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory information
The article says: "was transported as planned to the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center on 26 August" (citing China Daily and MSNBC one and one-half sentences later.) But the NASAspaceflight.com article cited for the launch says: "Its launch vehicle was delivered on Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center on the morning of July 23. On August 17 the technicians conducted the first launch rehearsal." So according to this, it couldn't possibly have been transported nine days after the launch rehearsal.

Perhaps the first two references are only intended for the LM2C failure and investigation. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

After a more careful reading of the NASAspaceflight article, I see it was first transported to the launch center on July 23. I would expect it would have had to be rolled to the pad sometime (unspecified) between then and August 17 for the rehearsal test. Is there some way the Chinese are able to conduct a launch rehearsal with the vehicle off of the pad? (There is also the issue of integrating the spacecraft with the launch vehicle.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With some other rockets, it is not unheard of for rehearsals to be conducted without the payload present. -- G W … 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, GW, but I wasn't so much concerned with the payload being connected to the rocket, as with the rocket being on the pad. So do we know if they rolled it to the pad a first time for the August launch attempt?


 * In the US, a launch rehearsal generally involves a complete runthrough of all electrical hookup (telemetry and power) and testing, and fueling procedures; almost a complete launch runthrough (short of ignition, of course) with the vehicle in place on the pad. I was just curious what sort of launch rehearsal, or "full ground simulation" (terms used in the NASAspaceflight reference) they can do off the pad, or on the pad but without the fueling pipes attached to the rocket (which the reference says happened only three days before launch, and after the Sept. 25 "full ground simulation".) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Did I miss the point or does the phrase "Chinese television broadcast the launch animation accompanied by an instrumental version of the American patriotic song America the Beautiful, a choice of music for which it later offered no explanation." has no connection whatsoever with the linked article ? I think this should be removed. zubrowka 74 02:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that CCTV and/or CNSA used 'America the Beautiful' for the animation was widely reported. It should not be to difficult to change or add to the link rather than trash the information. I'll take a gander around and maybe add it tonight.


 * Actually I just checked and the current link is the google top result for "America the Beautiful +Tiangong" and spells out quite clearly to me what is in the wiki article. I don't understand your issue with it. No problem here with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had the wrong reference. The mouse over link on ref #19 shows "cite-note-18", that got me confused. zubrowka 74 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Laboratory module or space station?
The first line of this article states Tiangong 1 is intended to form part of a space station complex. After reading the given sources of the article I doubt that it is a module for a larger complex. Based on what I read it is a small provisional space station that will dock with 3 Shenzhou missions and than will be deorbited. So what is it? I am no expert but I think this should be cleared up. (86.87.73.104 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC))
 * It's been fixed.--Craigboy (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chinese may be keeping their options open here, if all goes well, it forms part of the larger station. If it fails, it was a test article only. Stating clearly doesn't necessarily suit that purpose, so maybe keeping options open here is an idea. I read commentary to that effect also, but can't find it right now. Penyulap   talk 10:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
It is not appropriate to fill in the launch date in the infobox, until the launch actually occurs. The current planned launch date should be placed in the article text (it already says "late September".)

Please review WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." The August launch date has already been missed. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a countdown template thingy, which changes the text at a set time, so you can do your edit one time and it will change over while your busy or asleep. I can't recall what it is called, i used it once on the talkpage of the ISS, if you look at the history there at the time of the last big total lunar eclipse it's there. Penyulap   talk 10:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Chinese space station and International space station?
Do you have any idea?-125.82.251.202

Tiangong 1 or the planned Large Orbital Station?--Craigboy (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the space station page Tiangong 1 has a volume only about 1/6th that of the first Soviet station, Salyut 1, 1/19th of Skylab, 1/23rd of Mir, and 1/60th of the ISS in it's current configuration. It might make for an interesting section comparing stats of 'first stations', Tiangong 1 vs the others, etc. Of course this might depend on weather you consider Tiangong 1 a station, laboratory, or simply a docking target. When you look at it Tiangong 1 is closer in habitable size to the Russian ISS docking modules particularly MRM 2 Poisk, which I believe is the second smallest module. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It just dawned on me to follow up my earlier comparison... it's volume is roughly that of my 5'x10' laundry room. That should give a fair terrestrial feel for it's habitable volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What it's closest to is the (defunct) Manned Orbiting Laboratory, reported at 400 ft3. If your laundry room has the standard 8-foot ceiling, that's exactly the same. (Your laundry room isn't 10 ft high, is it? :-) Tiangong 1 is a bit bigger at 530 cubic ft. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was thinking in terms of cubic yards not cubic meters at that moment, 30% difference my bad... maybe I should raise the ceiling in there? Doyna Yar (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of that, I'm checking out what is here in these articles over again, whilst I'm writing up a comparison in the ISS article, I will be most grateful for comments on the comparison. Penyulap   talk 10:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

heavenly palace v. sky palace
Hello everybody! I was about to change the translation sky palace to heavenly palace, when I saw that it had already been in the article but was removed by user Peter Isotalo. Both names are used in the media, but I feel heaven is a more accurate translation as 天 tian discribes a concept more similar to what we call heaven. Moreover, tian is often translated as paradise in languages that don't distinguish between sky and heaven (such as my native German). Sky, as in blue sky, is more like 空 kong, though tian may also be used; but kong cannot be used to mean heaven. Please feel free to check it with your favourite Chinese dictionary. --Kazu89 ノート 21:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All the news articles I have seen (including CNN International and Xinhua ) use "Heavenly Palace 1" as the translation, so I agree with changing it. 96.25.248.210 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * +1, BBC. Where is "Sky Palace" used? ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: does the "palace" part carry any military or surveillance connotation? Chasing through Wiktionary I see that some of the synonyms listed for 宫 have the meaning "watch tower".  Is there a chance that this is a heavenly castle, keep, watchtower, etc.? Wnt (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Wnt! I don't know about that meaning. Both in Chinese and Japanese 宫 certainly means castle and shrine. In some dictionaries you will find tian gong translated as "heavenly shrine" or "shrine of/in heaven", but that's not what is meant here. In Japanese compounds it is also used to mean imperial or court, referring to the Japanese imperial court. Castles and palaces are also distinguished in C/J. The characters does, however, resemble some sort of tower ;) --Kazu89 ノート 18:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like many other Chinese zì (characters), 天 has multiple related literal meanings (See also: Wiktionary:天). "Sky" is one of them; "heaven" is another. A Chinese cí (word) need not reflect every possible meaning of its constituent zì. For example, one can speak of "天性" (instinct) or "一天" (one day) without explicitly referring to either the sky or the heavens.


 * Some words that include 天 to mean "heaven", exclusive of "sky":
 * Temple of Heaven (天坛 Tiāntán)
 * Mandate of Heaven (天命 Tiānmìng)
 * Havoc in Heaven (大闹天宫 Dà Nào Tiān Gōng)


 * In the context of the name of the spacecraft, 天 is more accurately translated as "heaven" rather than "sky". Similarly celestial names used by Chinese spacecrafts in the past include the lunar orbiter Chang'e 1 (named after the goddess of the Moon Chang'e) and the manned Shenzhou 5 ("Divine Vessel"). &mdash;Cheng ✍ 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC) [Edited 09:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)]
 * The Chinese are putting up lots of English language pages on their official websites, so for most things, it's easier to just use the Chinese Governments own translation. That said, in Grey areas where there is room for a choice, that's where we can decide on which translation to go for, I can't answer the question definitively on whether it should be sky palace or heavenly shrine, until I know what and who they are sending up, Chinese food is looking like a certainly, but are they sending up any hot young crew ? If it's grumpy old crew smoking pipes it's not looking good for heavenly shrine. Time will tell. Penyulap   talk 10:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

One or two docking ports
The article Project 921-2 indicates that there will be one docking port. However when you read the description of Shenzhou 8, 9 and 10 operations it seems to suggest that two Shenzhous will be docked to Tiangong 1 at the same time. Could someone clarify ? My impression is that there is only one port and that the description of the Shenzhou missions is wrong. Hektor (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Shenzhou 10 page has been fixed, the other aren't great but don't seem to imply that Tiangong 1 has two docking ports.--Craigboy (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This source seems to suggest that Tiangong 1, 2 are similar and have one docking port, while Tiangong 3 would have two docking ports. Hektor (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Two docking ports, according to the Chinese government itself. I've added a ref here and will add it to the ISS article as well, it's in English too. There will be argument over this so please assist as gently as possible that however authoritative sounding western commentators are, the Chinese government has the final say, it's their bat and ball. One end has the automated docking radar similar to Kurs, maybe that's where confusion came from, who knows. Penyulap   talk 10:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. Pre-launch video footage of Tiangong-1 shows clearly that there is only one port. Hektor (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is as lot of footage of mockups and animation that show just one, I am thinking that the chinese government website is making an error here, there are other errors I noticed, I wrote to them about it. If we can get a good video (not anim) showing both ends I think that is a better reference and the only one that would over-ride the government source itself. A chinese government source is the best thing to use, and shouldn't be hard to find. Penyulap   talk 10:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this video at 00:42 you can clearly see that the rear part of TG-1 is occupied by thrusters. The interior tour of TG-1 shows also that there is only one hatch. Hektor (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the first video, I think it's because my IP is outside the mainland, is it anything like this video ? Penyulap   talk 14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking at the same video then, I'm seeing an upper stage of the long march. Penyulap   talk 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the interior view, I'm seeing the Chinese not publicizing everything they are doing because of the often problematic western press. I'm seeing the one end with a docking port and the other end obscured from view. I expect if 'all goes well' there may be a second port that may be tested out. If all doesn't go well, I'm seeing the Chinese, like the Russians doing what they can to avoid the overly-critical press. (Like with Soyuz upgrade testing) Penyulap   talk 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Visibility
How bright can Tiangong 1 get in the sky? Where can I watch it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.190.38 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the thing is bright enough to be visible to the naked eye, you can anticipate that the answers you seek will probably be available on www.heavens-above.com within a short time. Although as mentioned in the article, with an i of 42 degrees, it won't be visible from say the UK or northern USA.
 * Old_Wombat (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, as anticipated, Heavens-Above now has it, and AFAIK that is THE best site for that kind of info (if someone knows a better one then please post it). As to how bright, well,the next weeks worth of passes over my house are of magnitude 0.9 to 2.5. So, much brighter than the Hubble, not as bright as the ISS.
 * Old_Wombat (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Heavens-Above is the best site for beginners, Calsky is for more advanced users, we have a list of satellite pass predictors page now too. Penyulap   talk 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Calsky is also brilliant if you have a cheap and small telescope and a camera you can attach to it. If you use a solar filter, you can photograph the space stations against the backdrop of the sun. Because it is a silhouette, and because the sun is so darn bright, cameras can use small, cheap, lenses and fast shutter speeds to capture the fast transit of the space station across the sun. Basically, you can get a mind blowing picture with cheap equipment using the information on Calsky. It will tell you when and where to set up the tripod to capture such a photo. If you happen to get such a picture, and are wondering what to do with it, you know, wondering where you could upload it so everyone can see it, somewhere you could, you know, add it to a website somewhere, then, well I guess you could log in here and let me know and I'll help you look. Penyulap   talk 13:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)