China's Space Program News Thread

[Lethe]

I think a little perspective is in order.

It is unreasonable to expect that the United States and other western nations would sit still for decades while China played catch-up. So the United States has developed a new generation of launch vehicles -- what of it? It does not change the fundamental trajectory of convergence between China and the United States.

The F-22 entered service in 2005, the same year as the J-10. Should China have despaired at this? Less than fifteen years later, the question seems foolish.

Indeed, given that the biggest threat to China's eventual parity and even leadership across various technological domains is that the United States might awaken from its slumber before it is too late, a symbol of American supremacy such as Falcon Heavy could prove very useful for China in continuing to lull the US Congress and the American people into a false sense of security.

 

[Quickie]

Unfortunately you will be upset in near future when Falcon heavy is going to send a real payload, I am upset now after reading this:
If this is true, then we have a problem..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The launch cost of Falcon Heavy is US$90m with a payload of over 60 tonnes while the cost of Long March 5 is US$158m with a payload of 25 tonnes. This is the gap.

But maybe people are getting too ahead of themselves. The Falcon Heavy haven't proved it-selves of having launched even a 10 tonnes payload into LEO, not to mention 60 tonnes. At higher payload, the rocket engines need to be throttled up to a much higher thrust power and this could cause a different level of vibration and resonance stress to the rocket structure.

 

[broadsword]

But maybe people are getting too ahead of themselves. The Falcon Heavy haven't proved it-selves of having launched even a 10 tonnes payload into LEO, not to mention 60 tonnes. At higher payload, the rocket engines need to be throttled up to a much higher thrust power and this could cause a different level of vibration and resonance stress to the rocket structure.

It is advisable to to take their word that it could launch that 60 tonne weight. I am sure China and the rest are going to take that as the benchmark until proven otherwise.

 

[Quickie]

It is advisable to to take their word that it could launch that 60 tonne weight. I am sure China and the rest are going to take that as the benchmark until proven otherwise.

I have my reservation. SpaceX could have launched a 20 tonnes payload to LEO and in return get important and critical engineering data and yet they choose to launch a light payload (the Tesla) to a elliptical orbit - which may be equivalent to 8 tonnes LEO payload.

 

[vincent]

Assuming SpaceX can achieve their cost per ton estimate

 

[2=GT]

Beidou-3 MEO-3 & MEO-4 launched today

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[antiterror13]

And Xi visited the launch site before the launch (big moral boost for the scientists there)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CHENGDU, Feb. 12 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Xi Jinping visited a satellite launch site in Sichuan Province in southwest China Saturday ahead of the launch of BeiDou-3 satellites.
Two BeiDou-3 satellites were sent into space Monday.
Xi, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, inspected the preparation work for the launch while visiting the site's command center.
He talked with the scientists and technicians, asking them about their research, work and lives.
He told them to keep pursuing precision and perfection to ensure the success of the launch

 

[sanblvd]

So just a few question about SpaceX and its latest launch, I hope someone with more knowledge and shad some light.

1. How did SpaceX develop rocket technology so kicky? US, Russia, China took decades to get to where it is, so did SpaceX got any form of technical assistance from NSAS? Or did they just literally hired its own engineers and develop it on their own? Same question goes for those China's new private space company as well, will they receive any technical assistance from the Chinese space agency?

2. I read some people say SpaceX is more of social media hype more than anything else, I don't think that is true, if that is the case, how its possible that SpaceX's cost of launch is so much lower than the traditional rocket companies, and they did have many commercial launch in the past and lined up in the future.

3. I also read that Falcon really offers nothing new because it straps 27 small Merlin rocket together, and the performance of each Merlin rocket is not really start of the art in its design, and this is also the reason why US beat Russian effort to the moon, because US actually took the time to develop large Saturn rocket but Russia used like 50 smaller rocket on its N1 rocket. The more rockets the higher chance of failure.

Therefore I read the argument that China's LM 5 is technically more advanced because it's using a brand new rockets that are much larger by itself.

Any thoughts? looking for balanced reply

 

[SinoSoldier]

So just a few question about SpaceX and its latest launch, I hope someone with more knowledge and shad some light.

1. How did SpaceX develop rocket technology so kicky? US, Russia, China took decades to get to where it is, so did SpaceX got any form of technical assistance from NSAS? Or did they just literally hired its own engineers and develop it on their own? Same question goes for those China's new private space company as well, will they receive any technical assistance from the Chinese space agency?

2. I read some people say SpaceX is more of social media hype more than anything else, I don't think that is true, if that is the case, how its possible that SpaceX's cost of launch is so much lower than the traditional rocket companies, and they did have many commercial launch in the past and lined up in the future.

3. I also read that Falcon really offers nothing new because it straps 27 small Merlin rocket together, and the performance of each Merlin rocket is not really start of the art in its design, and this is also the reason why US beat Russian effort to the moon, because US actually took the time to develop large Saturn rocket but Russia used like 50 smaller rocket on its N1 rocket. The more rockets the higher chance of failure.

Therefore I read the argument that China's LM 5 is technically more advanced because it's using a brand new rockets that are much larger by itself.

Any thoughts? looking for balanced reply

1. SpaceX is a private company, meaning that its vision and R&D trajectory aren't bound by state interests or government contracts. It is willing and at their discretion to pursue whatever projects they wish. This not only promotes the development of innovative technologies but also allows companies like SpaceX to pursue avenues untouched by its predecessors (such as vertical-landing technology .... for the most part anyways if we discount the failed NASA rocket in the 1950s/60s). Secondly, competition for the commercial launch market allows SpaceX to use its human and technical resources more efficiently.

I'd like to mention that what you call SpaceX's greatest letdown (i.e. using 27 smaller engines instead of a few huge ones) is actually its greatest strength. It allowed them to achieve what would normally take entire countries decades to attain in a fairly compressed period of time. That said, doing so still takes a lot of engineering acuity since the Soviets also attempted a similar feat (stringing 30 NK-15 engines together for their N-1 rocket) but failed spectacularly.

3. Actually, the sword cuts both ways. 30 engines may predispose the rocket to a higher chance of plumbing issues (again, this is critically tied in to the inherent design of the fuel pump systems and fuel feeds so it might not be the same for both rockets) but a failure in one (or even several) of the engines means that your rocket would still be able to achieve most of its launch goals.

The claim that the CZ-5 is "more advanced" because it's using newer rockets is just blind self-delusion, plain and simple.

 

[sanblvd]

1. SpaceX is a private company, meaning that its vision and R&D trajectory aren't bound by state interests or government contracts. It is willing and at their discretion to pursue whatever projects they wish. This not only promotes the development of innovative technologies but also allows companies like SpaceX to pursue avenues untouched by its predecessors (such as vertical-landing technology .... for the most part anyways if we discount the failed NASA rocket in the 1950s/60s). Secondly, competition for the commercial launch market allows SpaceX to use its human and technical resources more efficiently.

I'd like to mention that what you call SpaceX's greatest letdown (i.e. using 27 smaller engines instead of a few huge ones) is actually its greatest strength. It allowed them to achieve what would normally take entire countries decades to attain in a fairly compressed period of time. That said, doing so still takes a lot of engineering acuity since the Soviets also attempted a similar feat (stringing 30 NK-15 engines together for their N-1 rocket) but failed spectacularly.

3. Actually, the sword cuts both ways. 30 engines may predispose the rocket to a higher chance of plumbing issues (again, this is critically tied in to the inherent design of the fuel pump systems and fuel feeds so it might not be the same for both rockets) but a failure in one (or even several) of the engines means that your rocket would still be able to achieve most of its launch goals.

The claim that the CZ-5 is "more advanced" because it's using newer rockets is just blind self-delusion, plain and simple.

Thanks for the reply, but really nothing was answered.

1. Did SpaceX received any technical support from NASA at all? Yes or no?

2. You just contradicted yourself on the smaller rockets, you mention N1's exploded when 1 of those rocket failed.. but yet how can the same situation for Falcon Heavy be a plus, that the successful rocket will compensate for the failed rocket? Won't it also blow up like N1 if any one of those 27 Merlin also fails? You can argue that SpaceX's rocket have higher production quality and thus their rocket have less failure than Soviet rockets, but still each one of the 27 rocket still have a failure rate no matter how low it is, and if you combine them together, it's still a substantial risk than fewer rockets.

3. I never said CZ-5 is more advanced before its newer, I said that some people argue CZ-5 is more advanced because it uses the Saturn approach that, its a brand new rocket that is BIGGER with more thrust on its own, and bigger rockets are harder to develop and have less chance of failure than if you just strap a bunch of smaller rocket together.

4. I still like to know that does the Merlin rocket by itself is any superior than other similar class in its weight class? Does the Merlin rocket itself have any breakthrough in technology than any existing rockets?