Global future space architecture thread

[Nx4eu]

You are fundamentally ignorant of the technology. Starship’s payload bay is an enclosed design (and what you call a fairing is actually the internal volume of the spacecraft itself). The larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is, as this is limited by the dimensions of the payload bay door.

The real problem with Starship right now is that this storage space is integrated with and inseparable from the second stage. For any payload to be deployed, it must exit through a door. Considering the need for reusability, the current design for the door has a maximum area of approximately 8x6 meters or 8x7 meters. An 8-meter height is roughly the minimum length required to deploy a heavy geosynchronous satellite (which are >6m long).

Furthermore, as a heavy-lift launch vehicle, Starship’s payload bay volume is actually the smallest in its class.

The SLS Block 2 (130t to LEO) has a payload bay volume of 1,800 m³.
The CZ-9 (150t to LEO) is projected to have a payload bay volume of 2,100-2,400 m³, and could even reach 2,800-3,000 m³ for LEO missions.
Let me also tell you this: even the improved Starship, the original v3 version with a height of over 150 meters, would only have a payload bay volume of 1,200-1,400 m³. The latest v4, with a height of only 142 meters, will likely have a volume of just 1,100-1,200 m³. Other variants have even smaller payload bays than the v1/v2 versions.

In my eyes, Starship is essentially the worst heavy-lift rocket design ever conceived. You don’t understand the requirements of rocket design, which is why you can’t see that Starship is a deformed piece of junk with grotesquely imbalanced metrics. But most of the professionals in China and the U.S. who truly understand aerospace design get it. It’s just that these experts are routinely attacked (by Musk’s fans who use Falcon 9 as a weapon), so they mostly keep quiet now.

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that a good design is a synthesis of multiple parameters. Starship only excels in one metric: one-time payload capacity. It also has a good metric for reusability (low cost). All other spacecraft metrics are abysmal to an absurd degree. For example, if there were a metric for payload deployment capability, all currently visible versions of Starship are inferior to Falcon 9. And that is frankly ridiculous.

This is why I say it’s a specialized-purpose rocket, not a general-purpose one. You clearly don’t understand the problems China encountered with the CZ-2/CZ-3 series, where adapting one type of rocket for one class of payload was incredibly inefficient. Just look at Starship now: isn’t it a case where one class of payload requires a specific variant of the rocket?

If you still don’t understand this, I don’t care to elaborate further. I’ll just say that Western de-industrialization has gone on for so long that you’ve forgotten how to evaluate engineering and assess risk. Meanwhile, those of us in China can only chuckle to ourselves while reading the Chinese translations of various Western textbooks from the industrial peak of the 1960s-90s that fill our libraries.

Not entirely fair to use CZ-9 as it doesn't exist and won't exist until 10 years out from now at the very least, mid 2030s to 2040s. Is it not possible for SpaceX to redesign starship for maximum payload delivery to LEO in the time it takes for CZ-9 to enter usable service? The Super heavy booster platform seems to have a lot of potential if although the starship is somewhat flawed. SpaceX is currently able to rapidly redesign and introduce improvements of the platform. The super heavy booster and starship architecture is an innovation that China seems to be following, with the complete CZ-9 redesign. So I don't quite understand the statement of it being the worst thing ever conceived.

 

[gelgoog]

LOX/LH2 would have been much better for the second stage. The LOX/Methane combination has relatively low Isp. They are already designing different smaller Raptor engines for Starship's second stage anyway. Might as well switch fuel.

 

[nativechicken]

Wait, did you actually say "the larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is"? Can you hear what you are saying?

8*6/7m is huge and sufficient for at least 95% of all payload to orbit. Satellites can also be designed to fit this constraint if necessary.

Starship and the SLS block 1 are the only heavy-lift launch vehicles in existence and Starship>>>SLS block 1.

SLS Block 2 doesn't exist and probably never will.

CZ-9 doesn't exist now and when it is developed its going to look a lot like Starship.

In other words, literally the largest volume in the world.

Is that why every time CZ-9 gets an update, it looks more and more like the Starship? Is that why the frontrunners of Chinese space launch industry are all aiming for methalox full-flow staged combustion engines and fully reusable first and second stages in their future plan?

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that multiple parameters are not equally important. Cost per kg to orbit/reusability>everything else. This is why Falcon 9 launches 90% of all payload into orbit and single-handedly saves the US space industry.

You are the only person to say this because it is retarded.

No, its very clear that once Starship becomes operational, it can launch almost any class of payload, and likely more types of payloads than any other singular class of rocket by virtual of its size, lift capacity and availability.

You didn't elaborate at all. In fact, you provided literally zero evidence to back up your argument other than inventing fake metrics like "specialized-purpose vs general-purpose rocket." Perhaps that is because by actually relevant metrics like cost per kg to orbit, turn-around time, max payload to LEO, max payload dimension, etc, the Starship is truly revolutionary (once fully developed).

I'm sure I understand everything much better than you. And who the f*ck are you to "evaluate engineering and assess risk" anyway? Recognized Chinese authorities on aerospace like Cute Orca very much see Starship as a game changer.

I have answered most of your questions many times in this thread and related ones. I won’t repeat myself, so please review my previous posts.

To address this here: China’s Long March 9 (CZ-9) is designed to deploy ultra-large payloads of 30x10 meters in diameter (featuring deployable structures). It is planned to meet the requirements of a Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) station in Geostationary Orbit (GEO), with a total length exceeding 1km and a mass of 10,000-20,000 tons.

China recognizes the value of Starship because constructing such a super-spacecraft, larger than 1km, will require hundreds of heavy-lift rocket launches, and the construction must be completed within two years. Therefore, a low-cost, reusable, and efficient heavy-lift launch vehicle is essential.

However, China’s current goal for a heavy-lift rocket is phased. The first phase focuses only on first-stage reusability. There are no short-term plans for a second-stage reusable design. This is because the fully reusable heavy rocket is intended to support the construction of the SBSP station, which is planned for around 2050. Consequently, China’s current design for a fully reusable heavy-lift rocket is meant to support a project 25 years into the future.

Let me tell you this: China’s fully reusable heavy-lift rocket hasn’t even begun to discuss payload bay designs yet. All private sources know this is a massive design pitfall. There isn’t a concrete solution yet (if it can’t deliver a single 30x10m payload to orbit, it’s useless).

So I will tell you clearly: China’s CZ-9 heavy-lift rocket will not directly participate in deep space flight. It is merely a vehicle for escaping Earth’s atmosphere. The Chinese are not so foolish as to build something like that to fly into deep space, let alone to colonize Mars.

Of course, there are also plenty of civil aerospace companies in China that are just trying to dupe investors. They support this narrative because, frankly, capital is foolish. The fools in China’s capital markets believe in Starship, so these companies parrot the same talking points. Anyway, when it comes time to actually do the work and they can’t deliver, or when they see SpaceX fall into the trap, the demand will naturally disappear. For someone running a business, as long as they get the funding, that’s all that matters. Who cares what they end up producing?

 

[nativechicken]

Not entirely fair to use CZ-9 as it doesn't exist and won't exist until 10 years out from now at the very least, mid 2030s to 2040s. Is it not possible for SpaceX to redesign starship for maximum payload delivery to LEO in the time it takes for CZ-9 to enter usable service? The Super heavy booster platform seems to have a lot of potential if although the starship is somewhat flawed. SpaceX is currently able to rapidly redesign and introduce improvements of the platform. The super heavy booster and starship architecture is an innovation that China seems to be following, with the complete CZ-9 redesign. So I don't quite understand the statement of it being the worst thing ever conceived.

I’m not sure when the Long March 9 will be ready, but the official line has always been a first flight around 2030. I’m curious myself. I believe that after the major redesign, the CZ-9 will likely be delayed by 5 years, pushing it from 2030 to 2035, but I don’t know why the official stance remains 2030.

I’ve said it many times: Starship’s problem isn’t technology, but its design philosophy. If it were adjusted to use an expendable upper stage, all its problems would essentially disappear. But Musk won’t change it, and that leaves everyone frustrated.

Starship has a multitude of problems, and there are so many jaw-dropping moments throughout its project execution that I could write tens of thousands of words on the various stories and details. Most people are oblivious to these details, but when you share them with people who actually work in the aerospace industry, they are horrified, because these operations are normally non-compliant.

For example, the development history of the vertical methane fuel tanks at the Starship launch base is just mind-boggling. You marvel at how SpaceX could be so reckless, and the details would lead you to have extreme distrust in the company’s R&D process.

Starship isn’t leading in anything. You have to understand the design differences between the CZ-9 and Starship and grasp why the CZ-9 is designed the way it is to truly understand why Starship’s design is so poor. If you understand the many principled differences in Chinese and American aerospace design, you’ll see that this approach is a result of inertia, or even a missing category of technology (a chronic issue with American rockets).

These points are too granular to discuss here, and frankly, I’ve mentioned them in my previous posts, but most people don’t understand.

For instance, the control of the entire rocket’s length-to-diameter ratio, the design of the payload system, and the fact that Chinese rocket systems almost always consider a scalable three-stage design, whereas the U.S. has basically moved on from three-stage rockets (and this has a huge impact).

This is why Starship seems so bizarre now. We’ll have to wait for a reference system—namely, the CZ-9—to come out. Then, you’ll see what Western professionals have to say. It’s like the professional commentary on China’s sixth-generation fighter jet; how it was viewed initially is very different from how it’s viewed now.

Let me just give you one small detail: the length of the first and second stages of the Starship v4. That design is a joke. Look closely at the CZ-9’s design. Its first and second stages are far smaller than Starship’s v1. The height of the CZ-9’s second-stage tank isn’t even greater than its diameter. Can you stop and think for a moment about why the Chinese designed it this way?

For those who think China just copied Starship’s design, consider that Chinese people have the world’s highest average IQ, and that Musk’s companies employ a large number of high-level Chinese and ethnic Chinese designers, including green card holders. You need to understand why the CZ-9’s second stage only needs to carry 600 tons of propellant, while Musk’s Starship second stage is at 1,200 tons now, with plans to increase it to 2,000 tons.

China’s national-level aerospace designers laugh when they see the height of Starship’s second stage…

 

[Nx4eu]

I’m not sure when the Long March 9 will be ready, but the official line has always been a first flight around 2030. I’m curious myself. I believe that after the major redesign, the CZ-9 will likely be delayed by 5 years, pushing it from 2030 to 2035, but I don’t know why the official stance remains 2030.

I’ve said it many times: Starship’s problem isn’t technology, but its design philosophy. If it were adjusted to use an expendable upper stage, all its problems would essentially disappear. But Musk won’t change it, and that leaves everyone frustrated.

Starship has a multitude of problems, and there are so many jaw-dropping moments throughout its project execution that I could write tens of thousands of words on the various stories and details. Most people are oblivious to these details, but when you share them with people who actually work in the aerospace industry, they are horrified, because these operations are normally non-compliant.

For example, the development history of the vertical methane fuel tanks at the Starship launch base is just mind-boggling. You marvel at how SpaceX could be so reckless, and the details would lead you to have extreme distrust in the company’s R&D process.

Starship isn’t leading in anything. You have to understand the design differences between the CZ-9 and Starship and grasp why the CZ-9 is designed the way it is to truly understand why Starship’s design is so poor. If you understand the many principled differences in Chinese and American aerospace design, you’ll see that this approach is a result of inertia, or even a missing category of technology (a chronic issue with American rockets).

These points are too granular to discuss here, and frankly, I’ve mentioned them in my previous posts, but most people don’t understand.

For instance, the control of the entire rocket’s length-to-diameter ratio, the design of the payload system, and the fact that Chinese rocket systems almost always consider a scalable three-stage design, whereas the U.S. has basically moved on from three-stage rockets (and this has a huge impact).

This is why Starship seems so bizarre now. We’ll have to wait for a reference system—namely, the CZ-9—to come out. Then, you’ll see what Western professionals have to say. It’s like the professional commentary on China’s sixth-generation fighter jet; how it was viewed initially is very different from how it’s viewed now.

Let me just give you one small detail: the length of the first and second stages of the Starship v4. That design is a joke. Look closely at the CZ-9’s design. Its first and second stages are far smaller than Starship’s v1. The height of the CZ-9’s second-stage tank isn’t even greater than its diameter. Can you stop and think for a moment about why the Chinese designed it this way?

For those who think China just copied Starship’s design, consider that Chinese people have the world’s highest average IQ, and that Musk’s companies employ a large number of high-level Chinese and ethnic Chinese designers, including green card holders. You need to understand why the CZ-9’s second stage only needs to carry 600 tons of propellant, while Musk’s Starship second stage is at 1,200 tons now, with plans to increase it to 2,000 tons.

China’s national-level aerospace designers laugh when they see the height of Starship’s second stage…

First block CZ-9 for mid-late 2030s, early 2040s. Full reuse for mid-late 2040s. So timeline wise, very far out from now. Overall closer to 15 years away from now. I think It's a bit premature for Chinese rocket engineers to be laughing at SpaceX. Who knows what SpaceX will be doing 15-20 years from now. Starship is again rapidly iterating and as we speak they are improving the system.

I think what matters right now is starship is in the flight hardware testing stage, while CZ-9 is barely on paper. With how fast SpaceX has been jumping through upgrades on all fronts. I think from a layman's understanding, it is so incredibly premature to talk about the CZ-9's capabilities in respect to what's happening on the ground and in the air as we speak.

To give a rough comparison to something air force fans may understand, this sounds like Indian nationalists talking about how great the AMCA mk2 will be, 5.5 gen fighter jet. Best 5th gen in the world, except it's unlikely the competition will just remain stagnant. J-20 flies now, AMCA mk2 is nothing. J-20 will not remain stagnant for the next 15 years for the AMCA mk2 to be confidently better by those 15 years pass.

 

[gelgoog]

CZ-9 is kind of pointless anyway. It is CZ-10 which I am interested in.

 

[nativechicken]

Wait, did you actually say "the larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is"? Can you hear what you are saying?

Can’t you grasp the concept of an enclosed payload bay and what a payload bay door is for?

I give you a 15x6 meter space telescope. You tell me, how do you deploy this thing into space from Starship’s current payload bay?

Let me tell you how SpaceX does it: they say, “Don’t deploy it. Just install it inside our payload bay.”

So, a 15-meter space telescope is mounted inside a 70-meter-long second stage, where the entire rear section is almost completely useless. It’s all dead weight. Every orbital maneuver requires a massive amount of propellant. And on top of that, it’s cryogenic propellant, which is not suitable for long-term in-space storage.

There is so much you fail to comprehend. Why don’t you go ask a genuine space payload professional if this is considered good engineering practice?

8*6/7m is huge and sufficient for at least 95% of all payload to orbit. Satellites can also be designed to fit this constraint if necessary.

The payload that China’s CZ-9 can deploy in a single launch is basically the size of the American Skylab from the last century. It can handle something 25-35 meters long and 10 meters in diameter. Below that size, you’re looking at a mass of around 90 tons.

Do you understand? Your ability to release a single payload of 8x7x7 meters can, at most, handle a mass of about 50 tons (if it’s a giant satellite filled with propellant; if it’s a space station crew module, the mass might only be 20 tons). A payload bay of Starship’s scale is what I call a “high-density payload” bay. Falcon 9’s payload bay is also quite small; it can only carry a regular satellite of 8-10 tons, and it only gets up to around 20 tons when it’s packed with Starlink v1 satellites. Do you get it now?

But in actual space deployment, there aren’t that many 100-ton payloads. Most are 30x10 meter deployable structures or space station modules, within 100 tons, or even under 50 tons. This is why you don’t understand when I say Starship’s payload bay is too small. It can only launch high-density payloads or fluid payloads.

Starship’s current capability to launch a payload (and deploy it into space) is actually inferior to that of Falcon 9, New Glenn, or Vulcan.

Starship and the SLS block 1 are the only heavy-lift launch vehicles in existence and Starship>>>SLS block 1.

I can give you one single, devastating argument: Ask Starship to handle a mission to launch the Orion spacecraft right now. You think it can do it?

It can’t. And it’s not because the payload capacity on paper is insufficient. It’s because Starship’s enclosed second-stage design is incapable of deploying the Orion spacecraft along with its integrated launch abort and propulsion systems.

So, do you get it now? Looking only at payload capacity metrics is meaningless. You have to look at what the vehicle can actually do.

This is why a host of professionals are urgently advising Musk to start developing an expendable upper stage immediately. Otherwise, Starship’s real, effective contribution to American spaceflight will be far less than that of Blue Origin’s New Glenn, or even SpaceX’s own Falcon 9.

Right now, Falcon 9 can launch payloads for the U.S. and global commercial customers. But Starship can’t launch anything except for small scientific payloads like CubeSats.

This is the reality that every aerospace professional knows. It’s a reality you refuse to acknowledge or comprehend.

SLS Block 2 doesn't exist and probably never will.

This is because Boeing is hopelessly incompetent. The issue is one of execution, not rocket design.

The blame can only be placed on Boeing for hiring too many Indians into their upper management and driving out the Chinese.

CZ-9 doesn't exist now and when it is developed its going to look a lot like Starship.

In reality, their design philosophies are completely different. It’s just that most people here can’t see it.

Actually, just by comparing the size of the first- and second-stage propellant tanks, you can understand the two design concepts.

China’s CZ-9 is designed as a three-stage rocket, downward-compatible to a two-stage configuration, optimized for high orbits while兼顾 low Earth orbit. Starship is a two-stage rocket, and even then, it’s essentially just a low Earth orbit vehicle.

The fully reusable CZ-9 is a long-term project (at this stage, it’s essentially a preliminary study). It’s highly unlikely that it will fly unless the core problem of deploying large payloads to and from space is solved. (China has many options for second-stage reuse, and validating these technologies doesn’t need to be done on a 10-meter heavy-lift rocket).

To understand the evolution of the CZ-9 design philosophy, you must first look at the Saturn V heavy-lift rocket and one of its design configurations (an unrealized blueprint): the clustered version of Saturn V. The Long March 9 has always followed this line of thinking.

You can insist that China copied Starship, but I can’t be bothered to argue. As I’ve said, those who truly understand rockets look at the design philosophy and thought process—not the appearance. You can’t even grasp the differences in external appearance, so to me, your discussions about rockets are on the same level as saying “a car has four wheels.”

You fundamentally don’t understand the difference between a three-stage and a two-stage rocket, nor the difference between a clustered Saturn V and a stick version of Saturn V. Your understanding of the Energia rocket and the Space Shuttle system is also superficial; you mostly fail to comprehend the differences beyond their appearance.

Not to mention, why does Starship v1’s second stage need 1,200 tons of propellant, while China’s CZ-9’s second stage only carries 600 tons? Only when you understand why CZ-9 is willing to have a second stage with just 600 tons of propellant can you grasp why China’s true top-tier experts do not approve of Starship’s design (the general internal structure of CZ-9 is publicly available and officially endorsed, representing official approval of a small second-stage design).

If you can’t sort through these issues, you will never understand why I say Starship is a poorly designed system.

To put it in perspective: China’s premise for a 100-ton LEO payload is a total launch mass of 4,400 tons. Starship, at 5,000 tons, still hasn’t achieved a 100-ton LEO payload capability.

In other words, literally the largest volume in the world.

In fact, when Saturn V launched Skylab, its payload capability exceeded that of Starship. The concept of Starship’s payload bay volume is an anomaly—it is the volume of a closed payload bay. Everyone else’s payload bays can open completely. They can launch a single payload that nearly fills the entire bay volume.

You can choose to conflate the volume of a closed payload bay with actual payload deployment capability, but that’s your choice. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the professional consensus across the entire industry: Starship’s current practical payload capability for general-purpose satellites is effectively zero.

 

[nativechicken]

Is that why every time CZ-9 gets an update, it looks more and more like the Starship? Is that why the frontrunners of Chinese space launch industry are all aiming for methalox full-flow staged combustion engines and fully reusable first and second stages in their future plan?

The pursuit of fully reusable spacecraft has always been a goal for space agencies worldwide. China’s approach to reusable spacecraft is not limited to just one path like VTVL (vertical takeoff, vertical landing); in fact, multiple routes are being developed in parallel. The reason so many Chinese companies are working on VTVL is that the country has a massive satellite launch mission pipeline. This demand supports the development of various reusable rockets—not because SpaceX is doing it, but because China has its own strategic imperatives.

If you follow aerospace news, you’ll know what the U.S. military and NASA are anxious about: it’s not just the total launch tonnage, but the fact that the variety and types of space payloads (satellites) China is deploying now far exceed those of the United States. It is this breadth and diversity of payloads that makes China’s space program truly formidable—and it’s the foundation for the growth of its commercial launch industry.

As for “copying the U.S.,” what you fail to realize is that China can keep pace with the United States because it was already researching these technologies long before. There just wasn’t the opportunity or funding to move them forward. Now, thanks to SpaceX, Musk, and the U.S. government’s efforts, China is pouring money into these areas, and all that prior research is rapidly being turned into reality.

Why is it that Russia, Europe, Japan, and India can’t field similar programs? Remember, it’s not that China needs to copy SpaceX—it’s that China already had these requirements. The urgency of Sino-American competition has forced these needs into rapid realization.

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that multiple parameters are not equally important. Cost per kg to orbit/reusability>everything else. This is why Falcon 9 launches 90% of all payload into orbit and single-handedly saves the US space industry.

Actually, there’s something you don’t know: the cost of China’s expendable rocket launches is not much more expensive than SpaceX’s. Furthermore, China’s launch market is isolated from the international one, so SpaceX’s success or failure has no bearing on China’s domestic launch market.

Therefore, SpaceX doesn’t truly drive the advancement of China’s space program. China’s space program has grown because it generated its own internal demand, which in turn created the relevant market. This is coupled with the needs of inter-state competition (the U.S. has been trying to suppress China for the past 8 years, no one denies that, right?).

So now, China has these aerospace demands because it aims to build a second path for the world—a global operational model that does not rely on American and Western technology. Under this model, China has the demand to launch tens of thousands of satellites, build a lunar base, and carry out deep space exploration.

As for SpaceX’s 90% of global launch mass, what’s the rush? A few years ago, Tesla’s electric cars were all the rage globally. And now?

In fact, you still need to understand what the U.S. military and NASA are worried about recently: that the categories and types of Chinese satellites are clearly beginning to surpass those of the U.S. What China is least worried about is actually the quantity issue. The truth is, SpaceX just started earlier and has a first-mover advantage. The problem is that they are launching a massive number of single-function satellites.

Meanwhile, China is launching everything from computing satellite constellations to various Earth-observation constellations. There are also advanced propulsion and other reusable spacecraft technology paths (for example, China’s AT-1 is a counterpart to the U.S. X-37B; the American program is essentially finished, while China’s AT-1 is being prepared for scaling up, along with various hypersonic technologies).

So in my eyes, the U.S. only has a short-term advantage with SpaceX; all other areas are collapsing. What is there to worry about?

You are the only person to say this because it is ret*rded.

Not many people these days understand the difference between specialized and general-purpose rockets. In fact, most people aren’t even aware that such a distinction exists. This is why so many people fail to realize that Musk’s Starship is, in fact, a specialized rocket, not a general-purpose one.

General-purpose rockets are designed to launch a variety of payloads. They have unified standards and technical interfaces for launch, which allows for rapid payload matching. A specialized rocket, on the other hand, is basically for one class of payload. Each mission requires a custom modification of the rocket. This customization must go through the rocket’s acceptance and verification process.

The design of the SLS was actually meant to be general-purpose, but due to its high cost and significant configuration variations, its general-purpose nature has become impractical. The design of the CZ-9 also emphasizes generalization, standardization, and serialization (what China calls the “Three-izations” standard, a practice that began with the CZ-5).

Starship’s problem lies in its enclosed payload bay. This means that for essentially each new type of payload, the second stage of the rocket needs to be specifically redesigned. For instance: the propellant tanker version, the propellant depot version, the HLS (Human Landing System) version, the Starlink deployment version, the general satellite launch version, the space telescope version, the space station version, and so on.

For the CZ-9, its general-purpose nature means it only has two broad mission categories: high-orbit and low-orbit. It doesn’t care what the payload is, as long as it can fit inside the payload fairing. There’s no need for the specialized integration with the rocket’s body that Starship requires.

Previously, due to the design limitations of the older CZ-2 and CZ-3 rockets (designed in the 1970s), almost every payload required a separate design and certification of the flight mission and sequence. This was the core issue that the new generation of launch vehicles, like the CZ-5, was designed to solve (the U.S. solved this in the 1990s, while China did so after 2015). The main reason China was so late was that its new rocket programs were initiated later. It’s a case of each generation of rockets having its own generation of supporting infrastructure and standards.

No, its very clear that once Starship becomes operational, it can launch almost any class of payload, and likely more types of payloads than any other singular class of rocket by virtual of its size, lift capacity and availability.

You still don’t get it: the problem that Starship doesn’t have a large enough door to deploy large payloads.

Right now, Starship’s door is just a narrow, long opening, about 7x1 meters. This door has failed twice in early experiments. (Have you considered the cost and consequences if a 100-ton payload can’t be deployed? It might mean the rocket can’t be recovered, and both the payload and the rocket are lost. Furthermore, a forced recovery attempt could damage the ground base.)

Now, how much would it cost to change to an 8x6 meter door? And how would you solve the problems that arise from it? Don’t be so quick to attack me. This problem has actually been brought up many times. It’s just that you haven’t thought about it.

 

[nativechicken]

You didn't elaborate at all. In fact, you provided literally zero evidence to back up your argument other than inventing fake metrics like "specialized-purpose vs general-purpose rocket." Perhaps that is because by actually relevant metrics like cost per kg to orbit, turn-around time, max payload to LEO, max payload dimension, etc, the Starship is truly revolutionary (once fully developed).

The issue of specialized versus general-purpose rockets has already been explained to you.

A general-purpose rocket doesn’t need to be customized for a mission; it only requires adaptation (like adjusting software parameters, running launch simulations, and matching payload vibration frequencies).

A specialized rocket, however, needs to be tailored to the payload. This means that both its manufacturing and launch processes require specific modifications, and these changes go deep into the supply chain.

To put it simply, during manufacturing, the processes, workflows, and even specific components must be customized according to the design. At the very least, within an ERP system, it’s treated as a different item, because the manufacturing flow, parts, production workflows, assembly procedures, and testing have all changed. It’s essentially a different rocket.

With a general-purpose rocket, this problem doesn’t exist. You basically don’t need to maintain multiple models (you can just phase out the old ones).

The reason you don’t know this is that you are completely unfamiliar with industrial manufacturing (this is very common; any company involved in production and manufacturing faces this issue). If you ask the production people at NASA, they’ll know exactly what this is.

As for what you call “revolutionary,” the truth is, you understand far too few of the factors that define a rocket’s capabilities. I won’t waste my breath explaining more.

You don’t get it. When you apply the metrics you’ve mentioned to a concrete problem—like the one I brought up earlier: can Starship, right now, replace SLS’s launch function?—you’ll discover that it can’t actually do a single one of the things you listed. This includes its current cost control.

Why? You say it has a large payload capacity, but the reality is we have to wait for v3/v4 to come out and be proven before that capacity can be considered credible. You call the Long March 9 a “PPT rocket,” but in reality, Starship’s current state isn’t much better than a PowerPoint presentation.

Right now, Starship is still only launching its own specialized payloads. It can’t launch other general-purpose payloads at all, like maritime satellites, for example.

Launching a maritime satellite requires solving two problems:

Getting an 6x4m satellite out of the payload bay (non-electric propulsion versions are over 5 tons and destined for GEO).
It needs an upper stage to transfer that 5-ton satellite from LEO to a higher orbit.
Then go look at how big that upper stage and its nozzle would have to be. You can get a clear idea just by looking at a structural diagram of a Delta IV…

A Falcon 9’s fairing can handle a payload up to 10 meters; it fits just one maritime satellite, and then its second stage pushes the payload directly to a GTO orbit. An 8x6 meter door might let a satellite out in one go, but it still wouldn’t have the propulsion to get into GTO.

I'm sure I understand everything much better than you. And who the f*ck are you to "evaluate engineering and assess risk" anyway? Recognized Chinese authorities on aerospace like Cute Orca very much see Starship as a game changer.

Most Chinese space enthusiasts are just parroting what others say; very few have opinions of their own. The majority are just purveyors of news, and many have rarely taken the time to systematically study aerospace knowledge. This includes many people within the aerospace system itself; I’ve seen it time and again.

I read the content of Chinese aerospace management journals and specialized publications. I’m telling you, 99.9% of Chinese space enthusiasts would never read them; they wouldn’t even glance at them.

Let me give you an example. Around 2020, the Chinese space enthusiast community was filled with discussions about the supposed competitive relationship between the CZ-10 and the CZ-9, framing it as a choice between one or the other. I consistently told everyone that in official Chinese contexts, the new-generation manned launch vehicle (CZ-10) and the heavy-lift launch vehicle (CZ-9) have always existed in parallel. Note, I’m not talking about the moon rocket. In official Chinese documents, the CZ-10 is now positioned as the new-generation manned rocket, set to replace the CZ-2F.

And besides me, no one seemed to notice this. This included people supposedly inside the aerospace corporations, who later argued endlessly about whether the CZ-10 or CZ-9 should be approved. I couldn’t stand it anymore, so I posted an article written by Long Lehao in 2010. It detailed the mission relationship between the CZ-5DY (the direct predecessor to the CZ-10) and the heavy-lift launch vehicle. I then wrote a lengthy explanation, annotating a screenshot of the original text with extensive information.

After I posted this on the CD and Aerospace Port forums, the next day, several domestic aerospace self-media outlets all reposted Long Lehao’s 2010 article and reinterpreted it (using my post and my annotated screenshots). Only then did everyone realize that the CZ-10 and CZ-9 were not in a competitive relationship, but were part of a sequential plan. The CZ-10 is to solve the moon landing problem, while the CZ-9 is to solve the base-building problem. Long Lehao’s original plan was for a 5-10 year interval. In the original text, the CZ-5DY was slated for its first flight in 2024, with the heavy-lift vehicle to come after 2030.

I then even found a 2013 report from a local Shanghai magazine stating that China had paused the development of its moon rocket to ensure the space station program was prioritized. P.S. The CZ-5 was having several issues at the time; if you followed Chinese aerospace, you’d naturally know the context of those events.

I don’t need you to think I’m a professional. Over 20 years ago, when I was discussing the technical details of using ballistic missiles to target aircraft carriers based on Chinese literature, countless people said it was technically impossible. But the content of my discussion was eventually transferred to a Sina Blog and then used by the U.S. Congress for a hearing. I don’t need your validation to be an expert.

I’m just telling you that the details of the CZ-9 have always been present in various releases from official media. I consider myself one of the people who has studied the CZ-9 most deeply among Chinese civilians. The literature and documents I’ve collected on China’s heavy-lift launch rocket number in the thousands. The digital documents amount to several gigabytes. That is the foundation of my confidence. Furthermore, my collection of literature on reusable launch vehicle technology and hypersonic technology is also measured in gigabytes. Whether you’ve heard of it or not, I’ve already read it.

For example, a major pitfall for Starship in deep space applications is the issue of cryogenic fuel boiloff. When it comes to the specific boiloff rates for the three cryogenic propellants—liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, and methane—go ask those Chinese space enthusiasts how many can give you the numbers. I am someone who can immediately point to the specific data and which document it’s in. Back in 2020-2021, before Starship HLS had even won the bid, I was already discussing the global progress of cryogenic propellant storage in space on the CD forum (without looking it up, because I had read it long ago). I could casually list several American propellant transfer solutions under microgravity conditions. Go ask the experts you respect; do they know this?

Most so-called space fans don’t read this kind of literature, so the vast majority are just parrots repeating what they hear from SpaceX news or the space enthusiasts on X.

This is why no one thinks it’s a joke for Starship to use chemical energy for a Mars mission. No one knows the progress of China and the U.S. on dual-mode nuclear thermal/nuclear electric space propulsion, nor do they understand the significance of their various metrics. Forget about you guys; on NSF, I’ve seen a whole group of people who had no idea what space nuclear power and nuclear thermal propulsion even were. I had to post Chinese-language summaries of U.S. space nuclear energy reviews for them just so they could learn about the different types of nuclear electric propulsion technologies the U.S. is developing, along with their respective achievements and milestones…


------------
The AI that did the translation (using GLM) seems to have incorrectly translated some parts, distorting some of the meaning. I won’t correct them one by one. Everyone should just understand it based on the context for themselves.

 

[nativechicken]

View attachment 163334
First block CZ-9 for mid-late 2030s, early 2040s. Full reuse for mid-late 2040s. So timeline wise, very far out from now. Overall closer to 15 years away from now. I think It's a bit premature for Chinese rocket engineers to be laughing at SpaceX. Who knows what SpaceX will be doing 15-20 years from now. Starship is again rapidly iterating and as we speak they are improving the system.

I think what matters right now is starship is in the flight hardware testing stage, while CZ-9 is barely on paper. With how fast SpaceX has been jumping through upgrades on all fronts. I think from a layman's understanding, it is so incredibly premature to talk about the CZ-9's capabilities in respect to what's happening on the ground and in the air as we speak.

To give a rough comparison to something air force fans may understand, this sounds like Indian nationalists talking about how great the AMCA mk2 will be, 5.5 gen fighter jet. Best 5th gen in the world, except it's unlikely the competition will just remain stagnant. J-20 flies now, AMCA mk2 is nothing. J-20 will not remain stagnant for the next 15 years for the AMCA mk2 to be confidently better by those 15 years pass.

You don’t quite get it; Starship’s design philosophy is flawed, and that’s the most troublesome part. Of course, they can adjust, but there’s no sign of that happening right now.

What truly restricts SpaceX’s development of Starship is a financial problem. Developing Starship is burning through money right now. But the U.S. economy is on the verge of a recession, and many financial institutions are warning that one could break out early next year, potentially on a scale comparable to the one in the 1930s.

For the past few years, the U.S. has been engaging in de facto quantitative easing (QE). That’s why its real economy is weak while its stock market soars. Therefore, let alone ten years from now, all American companies are currently facing various problems. In this entire economic downturn cycle, Starship’s own spending is a problem.

SpaceX’s real source of profit right now is the Starlink market. China will soon enter this market, and once there’s a competitor, it will cast a shadow over Starlink’s profitability.

In the field of reusable rockets, SpaceX can’t possibly control costs better than the Chinese. If Starlink’s source of profit is eroded, how much money do you think Musk has to support Starship’s iteration?

Actually, China stated long ago that a launch vehicle like the CZ-9 represents the pinnacle of human heavy-lift rockets. Future space technology will have to change the rules of the game. China is now simultaneously pursuing developments in space elevators and two types of reusable spacecraft: VTHL (Vertical Takeoff, Horizontal Landing) and HTHL (Horizontal Takeoff, Horizontal Landing).

These are all fields that SpaceX cannot play in right now.

You simply don’t understand that China’s space industry has at least 400,000 employees who can be highly unified. The U.S. space industry now has less than 200,000 employees, and they are all doing their own separate things. The U.S. government cannot actually mobilize efficiently (you have no idea how the U.S. won the Sino-Soviet space race in the 60s and 70s) because the Reagan administration completely dismantled that system in the 1980s.

SpaceX is just a company with 10,000 employees. To be honest, its capabilities are actually very limited.

SpaceX’s approach is actually wrong. Its thinking is to pursue greater payload capacity by unilaterally increasing thrust and fuel mass. The so-called “next generation” that netizens talk about, like 12-meter or 18-meter diameters, all follow this same logic.

The truth is, you’ve never considered that from the perspective of China’s space program, this technological path might be fundamentally wrong. The reason is that you haven’t grasped the constraints of fundamental physics. That’s why you end up with things like two-stage rockets and the Starship v4.

I’ve reminded you many times: what the Chinese want is a strap-on booster version of the Saturn V. Only that can fundamentally resolve the conflicts among several core parameters in space development.

You can’t understand this part, which is why you think Starship is a good thing. In reality, the reason China’s space program is leading now is precisely because the Chinese have seen through this constraint.

To put it simply, Musk’s Starship is like OpenAI’s GPT—an approach that brute-forces solutions by stacking computing power. China’s CZ-9 is like DeepSeek—it uses superior algorithms and fine-grained control over the underlying systems, and solves real, practical problems (industrial implementation and supporting infrastructure) to achieve final victory.

Therefore, the two are developments on different dimensions. The U.S. uses brute force; China uses ingenuity.

Finally, Musk’s biggest problem is that his application scenarios are not real—things like colonizing Mars, for instance. This is why he is over-stimulating. This over-stimulation has a price: in real Mars mission scenarios, deep space scenarios, and low-Earth orbit scenarios, Starship actually plays a very small role. The money being spent now is being wasted.

China, in fact, plans its implementation steps based on real, tangible scenarios. It has no intention of doing things in advance, because it would be meaningless (there are no payloads to launch). It doesn’t make much difference whether the system matures a bit earlier or a bit later.

As an old Chinese saying goes: “欲速则不达” (More haste, less speed).