China's Space Program Thread II

[by78]

Some images of the Pallas-1 rocket being assembled.

Pallas-1 in its fully assembled state, showing the seven first-stage motors.

Meanwhile, Galactic Energy has successfully completed a hot test run of Pallas-1's servos under full-power conditions. The servos performed as designed.

 

[nativechicken]

There's a difference between having some reusable rocket research programs, which most major countries would have, vs having a sustained well funded program to commercialize reusable launch. Something like SpaceX.

And I don't need to believe other sources, I myself have read first hand quote and sources in the period 2015-16 from Chinese space bureaucrats and scientists dismissing commercial feasibility of SpaceX's approach.

You have seen all the information, news, or literature that I have undoubtedly read and understood, and I can be 100% certain that the information I have seen is definitely more than what you have seen. The disagreement between you and me lies in that one side, based on this information, believes that the Chinese space decision-makers at the time denied the feasibility of the VTVL (Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing) technical route of the Falcon 9. The other side does not feel that the Chinese space decision-makers have ever denied the development of a VTVL reusable rocket.
There is an idiom that describes the cause of this disagreement: taking things out of context.
I can be 100% sure that there is no problem with my observation. For example.
In the circle of Chinese space enthusiasts, there has always been a saying that in a certain CCTV television interview video in 2016, Academician Long Lehao, the former chief engineer of the CZ-3, publicly denied the Falcon 9 technical plan. Therefore, many people have always used this as a basis, saying that Chinese space is not enterprising. They cling to the unreliable parachute recovery and completely ignore the development trend of the industry. It indicates that Chinese space is extremely corrupt and decadent, with the old generation of technical oligarchs controlling Chinese space to decline day by day.
I have heard countless people repeat such views from 2013 to now.
Few people know that before the successful landing of the Falcon 9 in 2015 (December 2015), the people from the overall design department of Chinese space had proposed in the future use of CZ-9, to plan to achieve (with the goal of 2045), within a period of two years, the launch of 100-300 rockets, with a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) payload capacity of 100-200 tons, and the construction of a 20,000-ton class geostationary orbit space solar power station (kilometer-class spacecraft). Faced with such a high-density launch scenario, it is necessary to solve the reusability of heavy-lift launch vehicles. And the last person to sign this document is Academician Long Lehao.
Do you know this timeline? Before the end of 2015, Academician Long Lehao had agreed that heavy-lift launch vehicles of the CZ-9 class must develop VTVL reusable launch vehicles. However, the Chinese space enthusiast community, looking at a certain television interview in 2016, said that Academician Long Lehao denied the direction of VTVL rocket development and was a sinner of Chinese space.
I will also tell you that I have read the original text of Academician Long Lehao's interview. In my view, what Long Lehao said in 2016 was that the Falcon 9 had just successfully recovered, and whether the VTVL technology could successfully achieve large-scale application and truly reduce the cost of spaceflight still needs to be judged. The outside world should not be swayed by rumors and blindly demand that Chinese space follow suit.
If you are really engaged in technology, there is nothing wrong with what Academician Long Lehao said. The problem is how the outside world understands it? How do you understand it?
Chinese aerospace literature has long mentioned VTVL, VTHL (Vertical Takeoff, Horizontal Landing), HTHL (Horizontal Takeoff, Horizontal Landing), as well as parachute recovery. China is developing several technical routes. How many people really understand this?
Few people know that the deep throttling of the YF-100 was studied in 2008, but there was no follow-up. By 2014, the research was resumed, and the goal was a 10:1 thrust ratio.
How was the application requirement of YF-100's 10:1 thrust ratio proposed? If you reason it out in reverse, the answer is very simple. The minimum thrust of the YF-100's 10:1 model is 12 tons. The first stage of the CZ-7, with a single engine landing for the booster, can be achieved. The CZ-8R, with a first-stage rocket and two boosters, is only 30 tons. The YF-100's 10:1 model can achieve landing with two engines!
The key is that the YF-100's 10:1 model was initiated in 2014 or earlier. That is, by the latest in 2014, the overall design department of Chinese space had already issued tasks to the rocket power subsystem research and development units to study the key technologies of the power system for the relevant model rockets.
I knew that CZ-9 was to achieve reusable capabilities (VTVL) around 2035, which was 6-7 years ago. In addition to the document by Academician Long Lehao, Zhang Zhi, the chief engineer of the CZ-9 subsystem, mentioned it in the literature and in interviews with Xinhua News Agency in 2017-2018. Have you really seen these?
I only know that during that period, the various active space enthusiasts on the Chinese Internet, the big Vs, did not know these things. No one believed me when I said it. Few people read Chinese aerospace literature. They are all keyboard warriors playing the role of guiding the country through self-media.

 

[taxiya]

Yes succesfully entered lunar orbit, now just to wait for optimal conditions to land.

The landing is planned to be 20 days after orbit insertion.

 

[Quickie]

The 20 days likely include the time for doing surveillance (e.g. moon day time of 6 Earth days) and to wait out the moon night time (14 Earth days). A full moon day (14 Earth days) will give more time to complete the mission tasks.

 

[by78]

An update on the Nebula-1 launch vehicle.

DeepBlue has successfully completed a hot test run of Nebula-1's first stage (three engines, parallel staging). All performance parameters have met design expectations.

The planned high-altitude VTVL test of the Nebula-1's first stage is on track to take place later this year.

DeepBlue has successfully conducted the first long-duration hot test run of the Nebula-1's first stage. The test lasted 215 seconds and all systems performed as expected. The first high-altitude VTVL test is on track for later this year.

 

[taxiya]

DeepBlue has successfully conducted the first long-duration hot test run of the Nebula-1's first stage. The test lasted 215 seconds and all systems performed as expected. The first high-altitude VTVL test is on track for later this year.

Sorry, I think it is only the first stage engine Thurder-1 test, NOT first stage (rocket) test.

If you look at the end of the video where we see the close-up, there is only one engine. The text on the bottom left corner also says Thunder-1 engine. Another thing is the TVC movement. The first stage has 9 engines and I suppose only one in the center would be gimbled, but the video shows the whole flame moving around.

 

[tacoburger]

You have seen all the information, news, or literature that I have undoubtedly read and understood, and I can be 100% certain that the information I have seen is definitely more than what you have seen

I only know that during that period, the various active space enthusiasts on the Chinese Internet, the big Vs, did not know these things. No one believed me when I said it. Few people read Chinese aerospace literature. They are all keyboard warriors playing the role of guiding the country through self-media.

Well do results and reality matter? The reality of the situation is that China is slow, very very very slow in it's space progress. Forget reusable rockets, China can't even phase out it's hypergolic fleet, for all the sources, interviews and stats that you put out, the reality is that China is still using decades old hypergolic rockets for >50% of her launches, is the only nation to have kept such a large number of hypergolic rockets in service for so long and has been a major laggard in adopting modern cryogenic rockets, despite cryogenic rockets being a 1960s technology. China is two generations behind America and despite it's commitment to phase out hypergolic fleet, progress so far has been barely noticeable. Progress in space efforts has only been hastened after SpaceX slapped the global space agencies in the face. Not that impressive when everyone else is moving towards resauble rockets too, people move fast after they get a nasty slap to the face. While SpaceX is testing Starship, China is still busy trying to get the LM-8/LM-6 into mass production so that the nation can finally retire the older hypergolics rockets.

None of the bullshit you sprout about comments made by some high ranking project head changes this fundamental fact of the reality that we find ourselves in.

There's other noticeable things that China is moving slowly in of course. While America and the soviets were building superheavy lift rockets in the 1960s, China's own lackluster progress in that area means that they have to pull double duty in not only building a superheavy rocket, but making it reusable too. If the LM-9 had entered service in the 2010s, for example, then China can focus solely on making a clean sheet Starship clone instead of the weird design hell nightmare that has been going on with the CZ-9 and used their experience on superheavy rockets to make the progress faster.

They cling to the unreliable parachute recovery and completely ignore the development trend of the industry. It indicates that Chinese space is extremely corrupt and decadent, with the old generation of technical oligarchs controlling Chinese space to decline day by day.

So why the ultra-slow phase out on hypergolic rockets, something that America and the soviet achieved in a fraction of the time? Something that no other space agency, even IRSO still uses in such large numbers today? I know that you're probably going to say something of the lines of "Well hypergolics works and are cheap so that's why they didn't switch", and while that might be true, that's also masking a issue that most organizations face. Institutional culture matters. That's the difference between Blue Orgin and SpaceX, despite them both being private rocket companies founded by billonares and staffed by American rocket engineers and roughly the same age, one is launching super heavy rockets while the other hasn't even launched a single payload into orbit.

If your space agency has the mindset of "Yeah, we're fine with using 40 year old rocket designs and obsolete fuels because they just work" than no shit it's going to breed a mass culture of complacent slow old out of date dinosaurs that don't want to rock the boat. That's basically how companies and countries die, they become complacent and stop innovating. No matter what, you always want to push for the cutting edge, you don't "settle", it's always a race towards something better. I think SpaceX is successful because of this mindset, they always push for more capabilities, they don't go "ok that's good enough, let's slow R&D to a crawl to save money and resources". They could have sat on their ass for another 40 years and raked in money just off the back of Falcon 9. But they didn't.

 

[gelgoog]

Well do results and reality matter? The reality of the situation is that China is slow, very very very slow in it's space progress.

This is simply not true. Try comparing the technology and capability of the CZ-5 rocket with whatever China had 10 years ago.

With the CZ-5 China has achieved its mission goals as determined the decade before. Which was building their own manned space station. Need I remind you that the US has not ever built a multi-modular space station by itself?

The YF-100 engine, which is in Chinese operational rockets, is also more advanced than the SpaceX Merlin engine. Compare both engines.

Merlin-1D:
Thrust, vacuum: 981 kN
Thrust, sea-level: 845 kN
Throttle range: 57%~100%
Chamber pressure: 9.7 MPa
Specific impulse, vacuum: 311 s
Specific impulse, sea-level: 282 s

YF-100:
Thrust, vacuum: 1,340 kN
Thrust, sea-level: 1,200 kN
Throttle range: 65%~105%
Chamber pressure: 18 MPa
Specific impulse, vacuum: 335 s
Specific impulse, sea-level: 300 s

The Merlin has worse power, worse chamber pressure, worse Isp that YF-100. Roughly the same throttle range.

The Raptor engine is a more advanced design than either of those engines. But it still is not in service.

There's other noticeable things that China is moving slowly in of course. While America and the soviets were building superheavy lift rockets in the 1960s, China's own lackluster progress in that area means that they have to pull double duty in not only building a superheavy rocket, but making it reusable too.

They built a superheavy to score a propaganda win by landing on the Moon. Then proceed to trash the technology because it wasn't cost effective. The only thing in the Saturn V still in use today is the last stage RL-10 engine. The others were overpowered and no one needs that much payload. If anything the US delayed the advancement of space technology by at least 30 years with that stunt.

If the LM-9 had entered service in the 2010s, for example, then China can focus solely on making a clean sheet Starship clone instead of the weird design hell nightmare that has been going on with the CZ-9 and used their experience on superheavy rockets to make the progress faster.

There is nothing particularly special with making a superheavy. It just costs a boatload of money and no one needs that much payload. Let alone a reusable superheavy. That is doubly useless.
You get to make the rockets larger when you need more upmass than the rockets you already have. Which still isn't the case.

So why the ultra-slow phase out on hypergolic rockets, something that America and the soviet achieved in a fraction of the time?

Russia is still launching the Proton to this day and only recently did they stop producing it.

The hypergolic rockets back then were considered dual use. You were developing technology which could also be used to deliver nuclear weapons. You were saving money and resources by using common technology for both things. The strategic weapons deterrent, and space launch.

The only reason the hypergolics aren't favored anymore is because of their toxicity which makes them harder to handle. Particularly for a civilian program. In terms of performance they are actually slightly better than LOX/Kerosene.

 

[tacoburger]

This is simply not true. Try comparing the technology and capability of the CZ-5 rocket with whatever China had 10 years ago.

And then you compare that to the rockets that the Soviets and Americans were making 60 years ago. America went from small lift rockets to a superheavy in 10 years. China went from making orbit in 1970 to their first cryogenic rocket launch in 2015. Sure you can argue that the space race wasn't subsintable and both parties basically burn a lot of money, but at the same time, China in the 2000s is a much much larger economy and has a deeper knowledge base and has the advantages modern computer design software and electronics.

The Merlin has worse power, worse chamber pressure, worse Isp that YF-100. Roughly the same throttle range.

Makes it even worse that China is still so behind in reusable rockets then right? What the point of better engine if it's never used to it's full potential. It's not a win when you realize that China had a engine better designed for reusability but still unable to land a rocket almost 10 years after SpaceX did.

Like I already said. Just compare Blue Orgin and SpaceX. On paper both should be very similar. American private rocket companies funded by billionaires that are working towards reusable rockets, they are even of similar ages. On paper, the BE-4 is also superior to the Merlin. The difference is that BO moves at a snail's pace despite being similar to SpaceX on paper. On paper, you would think that they would develop at a similar pace. Institutional culture makes a big difference in the working of organizations.

They built a superheavy to score a propaganda win by landing on the Moon. Then proceed to trash the technology because it wasn't cost effective.

Hence what I literally just said in my last post about becoming complacent. Which American space agencies became after winning the space race. You're literally just repeating my point here. American/Russian space agencies also became stuck in a rut since the 80s until SpaceX shook things up. There's a reason why the entire industry stagnated for so long.

In the long run, a modernized Saturn V would have saved them the costs of trying to re-develop the technology with the SLS and avoided all the current drama with the current space race we're seeing today.

There is nothing particularly special with making a superheavy.

So why doesn't China have one today? When America was capable of designing superheavy rockets in the 1960s with slide rulers?

It just costs a boatload of money and no one needs that much payload. Let alone a reusable superheavy. That is doubly useless.

Stop. Just stop. A superheavy rocket isn't useless. We have already been though this. Just because America became complacent and lazy too doesn't give China an excuse. Most American also criticize the decision to basically abandon superheavy lift rocket technology too. Would have saved them a lot of headache in trying to basically redevelop the technology in the form of the SLS from scratch

What's next, nuclear power is useless because the West thinks that it's too expensive and stopped building them? High speed rail is useless because America decided not to invest in it and thinks that planes are better?

You get to make the rockets larger when you need more upmass then the rockets you already have. Which still isn't the case.

Or when you're launching payloads into deep space and want them to arrive before you die of old age. Or when you want to launch billion dollar payloads like JWST or Mars sample missions. Or when you're in a new cold war and you're trying to score a series of PR wins with your geopolitical rival via lunar missions.

Russia is still launching the Proton to this day and only recently did they stop producing it.

I wouldn't use modern Russia as a example of cutting edge space technology here. And they still stopped producing it. At this rate, China will be flying the last CZ-3 somewhere in the 2030s.

The hypergolic rockets back then were considered dual use. You were developing technology which could also be used to deliver nuclear weapons.

Yeah two decade ago. Now China's newest ICBM are all solid fueled rockets. You know what else is dual use? Combustion of RP-1 and oxygen in a high pressure environment, it's obvious why every nation that excelled at making cryogenic rocket engines were also excelled at making jet engines. You might even question if this is one of the reason why China lagged behind Russian/Western jet engines so badly in the 2000s.

It's not like China is anywhere close to phasing out hypergolics. Despite many statements, actions by the state agencies, more hypergolics then ever are flying and the production and launch of cryogenic rockets like the CZ-6/8 are at a snail's pace.

The only reason the hypergolics aren't favored anymore is because of their toxicity which makes them harder to handle. Particularly for a civilian program. In terms of performance they are actually slightly better than LOX/Kerosene.

Bullshit. Not when you consider modern advancements in cryogenic pressurization or considering uses of fuels like the use of hydrogen in 2nd stages for their higher ISP.

It's not like China is doing anything new with hyergolic engines anyway. When I said 40 year old rockets I meant it. It's not like they're developing something like the RD-270 or doing anything new with the techologny, just minor upgrades and variants of the same baseline rockets and engines.

 

[by78]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the International Lunar Research Station project.