China's Space Program News Thread

[Overbom]

if I’m an engineer of CASC,

Good thing you aren't then

I would feel shame

Nothing shameful. CASC is doing ok

and don’t dare to comment any ‘anomaly’ of SpaceX tests.

To dare is to do. SpaceX is different

Who knows how many ‘anomaly’ are hiding behind 1.5/7 ?

Definitely not you

 

[taxiya]

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.

how long and how far do you intend to derail this thread?

 

[Quickie]

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.

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

That is outright trolling. DF-41 and LM-5 can't be compared as the former is entirely solid-fueled.

Why compare LM-5 to F9, the former has a much larger max payload, especially compared to the F9 reusable version; and it's much too new to compare with only a few launches.


The LM-3B is closer to F9 (reusable) in terms of payloads.

LM-3B has had 80 successful launches, 2 partial failures, and 2 failures.

F9 has 3 failures if the pre-flight destruction of the F9 (Amos-6) is included.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

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.

The arrogance from you is slowly but surely showing. Dude, you need to chillax with your shit because you ain't that smart nor special oh chosen one. It's like all of a sudden you're an expert to anything and everything Chinese related defense and space programs.

Also is Space X part of the U.S. government? I thought it's a privately owned company started by some South African-Canadian now American citizen named Elon Musk.

 

[SEAD]

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

That is outright trolling. DF-41 and LM-5 can't be compared as the former is entirely solid-fueled.

Sure, I just want to see somebody more angry

Why compare LM-5 to F9, the former has a much larger max payload, especially compared to the F9 reusable version; and it's much too new to compare with only a few launches.

I think it’s fair because both of them got contract in 2006 (‘立项’ for LM-5 and ‘commercial orbital transportation service’ contract for Falcon-9) and their practical LEO capacities (although F9 is reusable, it can also be used as a disposable one) are similar.

 

[iantsai]

China doesn't approve technologies beyond what it can confidently build. It's very conservative in this regard. If this engine has been approved then it's comfortably within China's capability.

Not always.

Human has to make its best effort to get new achievements. If China is as conservative as you said, it would not be able to catch up with the US and European space technologies in such a short time.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Not always.

Human has to make its best effort to get new achievements. If China is as conservative as you said, it would not be able to catch up with the US and European space technologies in such a short time.

This rocket engine, impressive as it is, is not pioneering technology. The question you should ask yourself is "if the US [or whoever you think has the most advanced rockets] were developing this engine, would it fail?" If the answer is yes, then there's a probability China would fail. If the answer is no, then the answer would also be no for China.

 

[iantsai]

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.

Did you mean you were not among these 99.9% people and you had some DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of what is going on?

If this was the truth, then you might have talked too much.

 

[iantsai]

This rocket engine, impressive as it is, is not pioneering technology. The question you should ask yourself is "if the US [or whoever you think has the most advanced rockets] were developing this engine, would it fail?" If the answer is yes, then there's a probability China would fail. If the answer is no, then the answer would also be no for China.

Maybe you should ask yourself another question:

If the US was developing their rockets conservatively in the 1960s, would it win the race to the moon with the Soviet Union?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Maybe you should ask yourself another question:

If the US was developing their rockets conservatively in the 1960s, would it win the race to the moon with the Soviet Union?

You're not getting the point of the question. The point is whether it's difficult for anyone to develop this engine or China to develop this engine. The "fans" you alluded to in your original post take the latter view, I and others here don't.

Besides, if your assertion is that China always does things boldly, then it's succeeded with that strategy. Why would it fail now with this engine?