China's Space Program News Thread

[taxiya]

1) the main reason is there would be only two launches of LM-9 in the 2011 plan. LM-9v11 is too expensive to go anywhere but moon so all development cost would be calculated in the 2 launches. The estimated cost for the whole moon program in 2011 is ~¥100B.

2) they need to rebuild all infrastructure. There’s no big-enough test stand for the 500tons engine even now(highly likely forever)

3) a space shuttle($3B per tail, LM-9v11 is non-reusable) needs 3x SSME while the big white elephant needs 2. An Atlas-5($0.25B) needs 1x RD-180 but it needs 4. It also needs a kind of engine which I doubt if anybody can build in two decades (similar to RL-60), let alone their poor record in developing YF-77, a pretty simple one compared with above mentioned engines.

Don't play game by changing USD to RMB. Your text does not tell how this RMB 100B comes from.

Using US figures of a totally different system as the base of your calculation is ridiculous. I am sure that you know how much you pay for a cheese burger in your city, can you tell me how much a Chinese Baozi cost in Yun Cheng? Are you going to try to convince me of your estimation?

 

[gelgoog]

The RD-180 family of rocket engines was also designed to be capable of multiple uses. But in practice it will be really hard to throttle down such a high powered engine to make a powered landing. The RD-171s on the side boosters of Energia were supposed to be recovered via parachute for example. I think they would be better off using this technology to make a single nozzle engine and using that on a CZ-5DY replacement.

The Russians had a plan for a rocket family with the RD-180 at one point. The Rus-M. But it wasn't reusable.

 

[Overbom]

1) the main reason is there would be only two launches of LM-9 in the 2011 plan. LM-9v11 is too expensive to go anywhere but moon so all development cost would be calculated in the 2 launches. The estimated cost for the whole moon program in 2011 is ~¥100B.

2) they need to rebuild all infrastructure. There’s no big-enough test stand for the 500tons engine even now(highly likely forever)

3) a space shuttle($3B per tail, LM-9v11 is non-reusable) needs 3x SSME while the big white elephant needs 2. An Atlas-5($0.25B) needs 1x RD-180 but it needs 4. It also needs a kind of engine which I doubt if anybody can build in two decades (similar to RL-60), let alone their poor record in developing YF-77, a pretty simple one compared with above mentioned engines.

I think your numbers are based on US-shaped thinking. No way these are China numbers

You really don't know how much cheaper China can do these things..

 

[taxiya]

If that’s what they want to do, they should follow SpaceX rather than ULA, build a Starship rather than SLS. Lol. I’m absolutely sure a Raptor peer can build their foundation very solid.

You can wait CASC to ask for your "advice".

 

[SEAD]

99.9% of those fans do not have any direct knowledge of what is happening in Chinese space industry. Their only knowledge of China's bad performance such as CZ-5Y2's failure was because CASC told them. On the other hand, when CASC told them that China is making one of the best engine in the world, they somehow get the doubt that CASC can do it.

To these fans everything goes this way: China reports failure, this must be a proof of China incapable of doing advanced things, therefor they are concerned. On the other hand SpaceX reports "anomaly", this must be the proof of openness and confidence, therefor there is nothing to worry when Starship would put its promised payload to the orbit, no matter how many times it is delayed and capacity scaled down.

I have to point it out that Falcon-9 have launched for 155 times with 153 successes, 1 partial fail and 1 payload problem. At the same time Chinese LM-5 failed 1.5 times for only 7 launches.

 

[Temstar]

The RD-180 family of rocket engines was also designed to be capable of multiple uses. But in practice it will be really hard to throttle down such a high powered engine to make a powered landing. The RD-171s on the side boosters of Energia were supposed to be recovered via parachute for example. I think they would be better off using this technology to make a single nozzle engine and using that on a CZ-5DY replacement.

The Russians had a plan for a rocket family with the RD-180 at one point. The Rus-M. But it wasn't reusable.

You could just add say a pair of YF-100 to the bottom of the giant booster and run only them during landing.

 

[taxiya]

I have to point it out that Falcon-9 have launched for 155 times with 153 successes, 1 partial fail and 1 payload problem. At the same time Chinese LM-5 failed 1.5 times for only 7 launches.

and? As if I would care.

 

[SEAD]

I think your numbers are based on US-shaped thinking. No way these are China numbers

You really don't know how much cheaper China can do these things..

their rockets are cheaper than ULA but not so much. ~2/3 price while spacex can reduce it to 1/10.

and? As if someone cares.

if I’m an engineer of CASC, I would feel shame and don’t dare to comment any ‘anomaly’ of SpaceX tests. Who knows how many ‘anomaly’ are hiding behind 1.5/7 ?

 

[taxiya]

if I’m an engineer of CASC, I would feel shame and don’t dare to comment any ‘anomaly’ of SpaceX tests.

If you want to feel shame, go ahead. I am not an engineer of any space companies. BTW, anomaly in SpaceX's wording is failure in Chinese standard. Quiet shameful for SpaceX and its fans of dressing up.

 

[SEAD]

anomaly in SpaceX's wording is failure in Chinese standard.

Could you show me a single example in the list of 155 times of F9 launches? I would appreciate.

something more interesting is that DF-41 and LM-5 are built by the same institute lol.