China's Space Program News Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Depending on design, there are three critical parts for a manned vehicle, the manned component with life support and recovery system, a propulsion and maneuver component and a ejection system.
Dragon capsule combines all in one.
Soyuz and the existing Chinese capsule which is derived off has the traditional modules filling those. The question is what the CNSA has in mind.

 

[escobar]

The LM-7 definitely won't be launching human spacecraft immediately, but out of all the new ticket that are being developed, I think it had always be been accepted that it is going to be a work horse for things including man rated launches.
As for payload... it is not hard to envision a slightly modified LM-7 for the 14t spacecraft. The difference on weight is somewhat minor such that they will probably not need an entropy different launch vehicle.

We know LM-2F will keep launching shenzhou spacecraft for a long time. For the next generation crew vehicle, LM-5 is the most suitable rocket as It can launch the two versions for LEO mission and LM-9 for deep-space missions.

...After all it is expected to replace all LM-2,3,4 variants

LM-5 will replace LM-3 variants...

 

[Blitzo]

We know LM-2F will keep launching shenzhou spacecraft for a long time. For the next generation crew vehicle, LM-5 is the most suitable rocket as It can launch the two versions for LEO mission and LM-9 for deep-space missions.

I expect LM-5 will eventually also be capable of launching the new generation spacecraft, especially if they decide to not wait for LM-9 when they eventually do a manned moon mission or otherwise.

But I expect LM-7 to be the initial launch vehicle for the new generation spacecraft initially, considering when it will likely be first tested. LM-5 may later be used to carry the 20t variant.

LM-5 will replace LM-3 variants...

LM-5 will offer a whole bigger throw weight compared to LM-3 variants... and LM-7 can do the task of some LM-3 variants as well, namely LM-3B

 

[Deino]

Is this already the "real" CZ-5 ready for launch or still the engineering model ?

 

[Hytenxic]

A model, the CZ-5 will not be launched all the way till September. The CZ-7 will be launched first in June.

 

[SinoSoldier]

No, I don't think that makes sense -- the fact that it is a subscale demonstrator, and a demonstrator of only the capsule (rather than full scale spacecraft+capsule), should mean that launching subscale capsule demonstrators is a not going to be a regular occurrence. Therefore, it should mean that whether a rocket is "compatible" with the subscale demonstrator will have no bearing in regards to whether the rocket is compatible with a full scale spacecraft+full scale capsule, because they will be completely different sizes and dimensions anyway.
Given what we know about the payloads that the LM-2 family are compatible with and the variety of payloads that have been launched before, and the potential weight and dimensions of a subscape demonstrator capsule, there is no reason to think that an LM-2 variant rocket could not test a subscape capsule demonstrator instead.

So why are they using LM-7 instead of a proven LM-2 variant? Well, I think they may be using the first launch of LM-7 to test a subscale demonstrator because they would prefer to use proven launch vehicles to actually launch proper (and more expensive) satellites, whereas they can afford to use the first flight of a new rocket to launch a relatively unimportant demonstrator payload...
(in other words, if the first launch of the LM-7 fails, they won't lose anything too valuable, combined with the demand for reliable LM-2 rockets for satellite launches)


That said, I would be interested in what other payloads the LM-7 may have in addition to the subscale capsule demonstrator, or if the capsule demonstrator will be the only payload.

Hmm, it seems that my reply never got posted for some reason...

But anyways, I retract my statement. I just realized that the next-gen capsule would weigh at least 14 tons, which would be beyond the lift capacity of any Chinese rocket but the LM-5.

They could potentially upgrade the LM-7 by switching out the liquid boosters with solid ones, but the Chinese does not seem to have perfected that area.

 

[AndrewS]

I'm looking at the family of Long March 5/6/7 rockets and comparing them to the SpaceX Falcon series.

China has a very high launch rate of 30 launches per year over the next 5 years, which is similar to that of the US.

But the current design and lineup of LM5/6/7 variants means a lot of components will suffer from very small production runs which increases costs. It also means they essentially remain as experimental components because they cannot build up a track record of sufficient reliability. Ditto for the launch configurations.

Then look at how the Falcon engines, rockets, fuel etc are all standardised so it benefits from the improved quality and lower cost of mass production. And using the same components (even if they're not as efficient) proves their reliability - which is a very big deal in space.

I also look at the engine configurations on the LM5/6/7 - and think could a launch succeed despite an unplanned engine shutdown like the Falcon can?

Designing such redundancy in means Falcon can accept some degree of failure whereas the other US rockets must always aim for absolute perfection which is expensive .

There are a host of other innovations we see from Falcon, but since we don't know what the Chinese have done, it is not possible to compare and critique.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm looking at the family of Long March 5/6/7 rockets and comparing them to the SpaceX Falcon series.

China has a very high launch rate of 30 launches per year over the next 5 years, which is similar to that of the US.

But the current design and lineup of LM5/6/7 variants means a lot of components will suffer from very small production runs which increases costs. It also means they essentially remain as experimental components because they cannot build up a track record of sufficient reliability. Ditto for the launch configurations.

Then look at how the Falcon engines, rockets, fuel etc are all standardised so it benefits from the improved quality and lower cost of mass production. And using the same components (even if they're not as efficient) proves their reliability - which is a very big deal in space.

I also look at the engine configurations on the LM5/6/7 - and think could a launch succeed despite an unplanned engine shutdown like the Falcon can?

Designing such redundancy in means Falcon can accept some degree of failure whereas the other US rockets must always aim for absolute perfection which is expensive .

There are a host of other innovations we see from Falcon, but since we don't know what the Chinese have done, it is not possible to compare and critique.

The point of the LM-5 and LM-7 in particular is to eventually take over the current "30 launches on average per year" by which are done by LM-2/3/4 variants... in other words, in the coming years, LM-5/6/7 will make up a greater proportion of the average launches per year until all the LM-2/3/4 variants are retired and we only see LM-5/6/7 launches making up launches.

Whatever similarities or differences LM-5/6/7 have with Falcon variants doesn't really have any bearing as to whether the LM-5/6/7 will be mass produced and replace current generation launch vehicles, because they will replace them regardless, and their production runs will end up being no smaller than existing LM-2/3/4s, and likely end up being larger over their lifetime.


Also, the LM-5 and LM-7 do share some important core components.
LM-7 uses two YF-100 engines for its first stage as well as up to four YF-100 as strap on boosters, while the LM-5 can also use the same YF-100 as its boosters. LM-6's first stage also uses a single YF-100.

 

[AndrewS]

Look at the planned production rates for each of the engines and rockets for the LM-5/6/7 launches.

Yes, they deliberately designed it as a family with similar designs and common components.

But for each rocket configuration, I expect way less than 50 launches which means each configuration is still remains an experimental design without a sufficient track record. That is not mass production.

Then look at how SpaceX is aiming for 200+ rocket launches over the next five years, most of which have the exact same launch configuration and which all use an identical rocket design. So they will probably have a rocket production run running to a thousand.

And we look at the engines, we will end up with a few hundred launches for the YF-100 engines across the LM-5/6/7 range.

In comparison, the SpaceX merlin engines would be running into the thousands.

NB. This discounts how the first SpaceX launch with a reusable rocket is probably due later this year and will lead to a significant reduction in launch costs.

 

[Blitzo]

Look at the planned production rates for each of the engines and rockets for the LM-5/6/7 launches.

Yes, they deliberately designed it as a family with similar designs and common components.

But for each rocket configuration, I expect way less than 50 launches which means each configuration is still remains an experimental design without a sufficient track record. That is not mass production.

Then look at how SpaceX is aiming for 200+ rocket launches over the next five years, most of which have the exact same launch configuration and which all use an identical rocket design. So they will probably have a rocket production run running to a thousand.

And we look at the engines, we will end up with a few hundred launches for the YF-100 engines across the LM-5/6/7 range.

In comparison, the SpaceX merlin engines would be running into the thousands.

NB. This discounts how the first SpaceX launch with a reusable rocket is probably due later this year and will lead to a significant reduction in launch costs.

I don't know what you mean by "look up planned production rates" -- we have no idea how many LM-5s, LM-6s and LM-7s they are looking to produce over the next few decades.

I also have no issue with the idea that SpaceX will end up producing many merlin engines over the next few years, with the associated benefits of using a common engine for multiple rocket types and stages...

The issue I have is with your original statement about LM-5/6/7 is this part:

It also means they essentially remain as experimental components because they cannot build up a track record of sufficient reliability. Ditto for the launch configurations.

If you believe the LM-5/6/7 will all be considered "experimental components" and "cannot build up a track record of sufficient reliability" then I suppose you also agree that basically every single rocket in the past, present and future which is not a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy are also experimental in nature, and have not been mass produced?

Of course that is a rhetorical question -- the reason I ask it is to illustrate that the LM-5/6/7 will build up reliability and serviceability and affordability over time... and that our current metric for mass production for rockets is still on a scale of a few dozen, rather than hundreds. So even if "only" 50 rockets of each type are built and launched, I would still consider that to definitely qualify as mass production.

LM-5/6/7 may not use as many common components as the Falcon family, but they should definitely do a lot better than the existing LM-2/3/4 which have served China well and faithfully over the past few decades, and which definitely are not "experimental" and which have an excellent track record of reliability.