China's Space Program News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yes they are fortunate as you say, it's luck and probability. Most of the ground track is over the ocean so that is the most likely place, again that doesn't mean its responsible.



That's pretty vague and lacking any actual information, you're probably talking about tracking debris with radar? And by "technology" do you mean deorbiting the stage like everyone else does? You and a few others seem to really be pushing hard for these talking points without any logical or physics based explanation.




This is getting hilarious at this point - it's not about mathematics, there isn't some formula that no one can solve except the chinese. It's about uncertainty in your input variables that makes it impossible to get the right answer. You guys are shilling pretty hard and ignoring reality and science.
Roger that. but maths help calculate the probability and possibility. Without maths, it would be a matter of guessing, you and I can do that. Uncertainties are there, eg unpredicted storms, wind speed and direction, atmospheric conditions. The landing predictions of the spent rockets were calculated some weeks ago, anything can change in the meantime. The fact is China is more conscientious in deorbiting various rocket stages than the US counterpart.
 
Last edited:

kbecks

New Member
Registered Member
Before continuing your tirade about how China acts irresponsibly while "everyone else" deorbit their rocket stages responsibly, let's look at some cold hard data. The following Nature paper was written by Canadian researchers based on American space tracking data.

My comments are not some tirade, I literally just blamed SpaceX for the Dragon trunk incident.

Despite China and the USA having had similar number of total space launches since 2010, the number of potentially hazardous rocket stages left in orbit by China is less than half of that of the USA.

That's quite the stretch, the numbers reflected in that study include rocket bodies launched potentially decades ago and not just since 2010. You can't choose that as an arbitrary date for # of launches and then conclude that the US is more irresponsible, but again I am not saying they are perfect either. Also keep in mind that china literally drops stages on villages before they even get to orbit, but that's another subject...

My main point is that you cannot calculate where these stages will land, apologies if it comes across as a tirade but the outright ridiculous responses kind of drive that.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
My comments are not some tirade, I literally just blamed SpaceX for the Dragon trunk incident.



That's quite the stretch, the numbers reflected in that study include rocket bodies launched potentially decades ago and not just since 2010. You can't choose that as an arbitrary date for # of launches and then conclude that the US is more irresponsible, but again I am not saying they are perfect either. Also keep in mind that china literally drops stages on villages before they even get to orbit, but that's another subject...

My main point is that you cannot calculate where these stages will land, apologies if it comes across as a tirade but the outright ridiculous responses kind of drive that.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander
 

zbb

Junior Member
Registered Member
That's quite the stretch, the numbers reflected in that study include rocket bodies launched potentially decades ago and not just since 2010. You can't choose that as an arbitrary date for # of launches and then conclude that the US is more irresponsible, but again I am not saying they are perfect either.
Generally, rocket bodies left in orbit will either decay quickly, within a few years, or decay so slowly we can ignore the possibility of them ever falling back to earth (since human civilization may not even exist by then). The paper I posted is only considering rocket stages still in orbit with perigee < 600 km. Most rockets launched before 2010 with perigee < 600 km would have fell back to earth already.

Sure, there may be some rocket bodies launched before 2010 whose orbits decay over decades, but those must be quite rare. We know this because Russia/USSR has about double the amount of total cumulative space launches as the US, and yet, the number of potentially hazardous rocket bodies still in orbit left by Russia is less than half the number left by the US. Meaning, most of the potentially hazardous rocket bodies still in space were launched in recent years when the US had more launches than Russia. Unless, of course, your explanation for US having a far bigger share of potentially hazardous rocket bodies in orbit than Russia is that the US has been far more reckless and irresponsible than Russia in deorbiting rocket stages.

Also keep in mind that china literally drops stages on villages before they even get to orbit, but that's another subject...
Are you really going to use launch failures as your argument for China being reckless with space debris? If that's fair game, then the breakup of the Columbia shuttle over land must be evidence of US being even more reckless with space debris, right? After all, that incident had more debris reaching land than any other event in human spacefaring history.
 

kbecks

New Member
Registered Member
Generally, rocket bodies left in orbit will either decay quickly, within a few years, or decay so slowly we can ignore the possibility of them ever falling back to earth (since human civilization may not even exist by then). The paper I posted is only considering rocket stages still in orbit with perigee < 600 km. Most rockets launched before 2010 with perigee < 600 km would have fell back to earth already.

That is not true, the study itself says those items were selected because they would re-enter on the order of "decades" plural, not one. Please look at the raw data in the Github file and you will see that some VERY old boosters are included, here is a screenshot of the data:

1659341426904.png
Also note that since 2010 launch dates, PRC has 92x boosters listed with perigee under 600km vs only 49x for the US.

Again, I am NOT saying the US is innocent at all but please use the actual numbers if you want to use that study (which is a good one!).

Are you really going to use launch failures as your argument for China being reckless with space debris?

No, not at all. I am talking about launches where the booster falls back to Earth after delivering the satellites, it happened only a few years ago from Xichang on LM3B (Y66 i believe).
 

tygyg1111

Captain
Registered Member
Roger that. but maths help calculate the probability and possibility. Without maths, it would be a matter of guessing, you and I can do that. Uncertainties are there, eg unpredicted storms, wind speed and direction, atmospheric conditions. The landing predictions of the spent rockets were calculated some weeks ago, anything can change in the meantime. The fact is China is more conscientious in deorbiting various rocket stages than the US counterpart.
Surprise surprise
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
Generally, rocket bodies left in orbit will either decay quickly, within a few years, or decay so slowly we can ignore the possibility of them ever falling back to earth (since human civilization may not even exist by then). The paper I posted is only considering rocket stages still in orbit with perigee < 600 km. Most rockets launched before 2010 with perigee < 600 km would have fell back to earth already.

Sure, there may be some rocket bodies launched before 2010 whose orbits decay over decades, but those must be quite rare. We know this because Russia/USSR has about double the amount of total cumulative space launches as the US, and yet, the number of potentially hazardous rocket bodies still in orbit left by Russia is less than half the number left by the US. Meaning, most of the potentially hazardous rocket bodies still in space were launched in recent years when the US had more launches than Russia. Unless, of course, your explanation for US having a far bigger share of potentially hazardous rocket bodies in orbit than Russia is that the US has been far more reckless and irresponsible than Russia in deorbiting rocket stages.


Are you really going to use launch failures as your argument for China being reckless with space debris? If that's fair game, then the breakup of the Columbia shuttle over land must be evidence of US being even more reckless with space debris, right? After all, that incident had more debris reaching land than any other event in human spacefaring history.
Thanks bro. Cop this, irresponsible and loudmouthed US! People who live in glasshouse shoudn't throw stones!
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China Space Station: Innovations in Long March-5B rocket engine reveal China's space capability


163bb006bac14785994fb86377976351.gif

File footage shows an engine exploding during a test run. /China Media Group

The powerful Long March-5B carrier rocket is essential for the China Space Station assembly efforts as its missions are to carry massive spacecraft to the orbit. The engine that powers the rocket shows the innovation in China's space program.

Building the rocket engine is one of the most challenging tasks in space programs because it requires many cutting-edge technologies. The Long March-5B's engine uses liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen and kerosene as its fuels, a new combination of chemicals that needs years of research and testing.

d1ba9ac9bfd14ca18e8dd47813996adf.png

The engine of the Long March-5 carrier rocket series. /China Media Group

New materials for a new engine

The next-generation engine is armed with new materials such as superalloys to resist the extreme heat of up to 3,000 degree Celsius when ignited. But China didn't have such technology initially.

Developing superalloys suitable for the rocket became the first issue when the country approved the project to engineer a liquid oxygen and kerosene engine in 2000.

Superalloys are smelted based on iron, nickel, and cobalt with a large number of other alloys.

The first few attempt were disasters, even though the researchers were veterans with decades of expertise in the field.
Zhao Guangpu, a deputy chief of an underling company at China Iron & Steel Research Institute Group (CISRI) recalled the failures in the early days, saying that "the material can be ruined in about three second in tests" as the research team had not mastered the right parameters to develop the new materials.

"Sometimes we got two batches of products using same the raw materials and same smelter but only one batch is up to standard," said Su Jie, deputy director of a research institute at CISRI. "Its production can be very tricky."

For two years, hundreds of tests had been conducted from small smelters to mass production to develop the right material and China finally had it.

The superalloy China has developed for the rocket shows great performance and has already been used in several national engine projects.

The development of liquid oxygen and kerosene-fueled engine also helped China innovate over 50 new materials.

dc6bc36f632f4d6785b53126eb30e80b.jpeg


The Long March-5B rocket blasts off with the Wentian lab module from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site in south China's Hainan Province, July 24, 2022. /CFP

Dare to fail

The innovation of the new materials is not the only obstacle hindering China's rocket development. The new engines' test run had gone through a dark time as the engines exploded upon ignition. In 2001, the engine failed four test runs with two consecutive explosions.
"The engines exploded in less than a second and there weren't even any components left for us to trace what the problem was," said Ge Lihu, then chief designer of the engine who worked for an affiliate of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASA).
Under massive pressure, Ge cheered up his team: "Failure is a must. There won't be new types of engines without the failures."

The team grouped together to analyze from the exploded pieces with tremendous effort. They had once conducted over 100 tests on a valve. The longest record is 300 staff had stayed in the factory for three months when they did test in the day and analyzed results at night.

One year later, the new engine succeeded in test run for five second, which marked China finally mastering the technology to start the engine.

In 2006, the engine made it to 600 seconds. Ten years later in 2016, the liquid oxygen and kerosene-fueled engine completed its first task in the maiden flight of the Long March-5. It was soon used for more crucial tasks including China's first Mars mission, Chang'e-5 mission and the launch of the core module of China's space station.

"We have independently developed our own engines for the large-scale rocket, greatly driving our innovation in rocket engines forward," said Ma Shuangmin, a vice president of a subsidiary of CASA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top