China's Space Program News Thread

[Temstar]

There is no economic or cost based arguments regarding projects like LM-9 that is critical to satisfy certain missions which in turn are necessary from a National Pride and Standing perspective.

Making it reusable is a headache and doesn't speed up things.

My opinion.

It's true, plus even if LM-9 is not reusable it doesn't mean your entire space program is not reusable.

Imagine this: LM-9 is ready and China lands men on the moon and starts using it to build a lunar surface base. While that's happen it's decided the next step to take is to land men on Mars.

LM-9 may not be enough to perform a Martian orbit rendezvous return mission to Mars in one go, but what if instead of doing it in one go you launch the whole stack sans fuel into LEO, than fuel the stack using several orbital tanker missions? Those can then be organised by buying up Falcon 9 Heavy or China's own reusable heavy lift vehicle, whichever is cheaper/available.

 

[Xizor]

It's true, plus even if LM-9 is not reusable it doesn't mean your entire space program is not reusable.

Imagine this: LM-9 is ready and China lands men on the moon and starts using it to build a lunar surface base. While that's happen it's decided the next step to take is to land men on Mars.

LM-9 may not be enough to perform a Martian orbit rendezvous return mission to Mars in one go, but what if instead of doing it in one go you launch the whole stack sans fuel into LEO, than fuel the stack using several orbital tanker missions? Those can then be organised by buying up Falcon 9 Heavy or China's own reusable heavy lift vehicle, whichever is cheaper/available.

The In-orbit refueling concept (I guess one that has been popularized by SpaceX future vision?) may just remain a concept.

Rockets are like Balloons. The structural strength and shape of the rocket is retained by the pressure of the rocket fuel pressing against the rocket body. It is impossible with the current level of technology to construct a shell of a rocket and send it to space. Since there is no fuel within to help with structural strength and shape, the conceptual shell has to be very thick and/or made of extremely complex new material.

SpaceX concept is about sending a big rocket to space and then refueling it with another rocket (multiple Rockets tbh). But how much fuel is enough fuel for a crewed Mars mission? That question can be answered only if we answer what kind of Mars mission are they planning.

 

[AndrewS]

There is no economic or cost based arguments regarding projects like LM-9 that is critical to satisfy certain missions which in turn are necessary from a National Pride and Standing perspective.

Making it reusable is a headache and doesn't speed up things.

My opinion.

National Pride and Standing is a poor argument for starting a project.

Making a rocket reusable reduces launch costs and makes it a profitable venture, because entire new industries are now viable.

 

[AndrewS]

Rockets are like Balloons. The structural strength and shape of the rocket is retained by the pressure of the rocket fuel pressing against the rocket body. It is impossible with the current level of technology to construct a shell of a rocket and send it to space. Since there is no fuel within to help with structural strength and shape, the conceptual shell has to be very thick and/or made of extremely complex new material.

There is a significant flaw in this reasoning.

You can pressurise with a gas which has no weight, rather than with a liquid fuel

 

[PiSigma]

There is a significant flaw in this reasoning.

You can pressurise with a gas which has no weight, rather than with a liquid fuel

Xsizer is just more wrong than you. Most fluids are incompressible, gases are compressible and they do have mass, check a periodic table.

 

[AndrewS]

Xsizer is just more wrong than you. Most fluids are incompressible, gases are compressible and they do have mass, check a periodic table.

You're correct, I should have said little weight instead of no weight for a compressed gas.

 

[taxiya]

National Pride and Standing is a poor argument for starting a project.

Making a rocket reusable reduces launch costs and makes it a profitable venture, because entire new industries are now viable.

The Apollo program started as pure "who has the biggest dxxk" contest, yet it's position in space science and engineering history is unshakable and its contribution to American space technology is still felt today. SpaceX is standing on the shoulder of that "Pride and Standing" project and is making a big fat money from it. LM-9 is doing the same for China just like Saturn V did to USA.

Moving down a ladder and talking about other kinds of rocket are totally another story where re-usability is a good thing.

 

[AndrewS]

The Apollo program started as pure "who has the biggest dxxk" contest, yet it's position in space science and engineering history is unshakable and its contribution to American space technology is still felt today. SpaceX is standing on the shoulder of that "Pride and Standing" project and is making a big fat money from it. LM-9 is doing the same for China just like Saturn V did to USA.

Moving down a ladder and talking about other kinds of rocket are totally another story where re-usability is a good thing.

If you're just looking to develop new technologies, the Apollo programme was very inefficient because it left very little SUSTAINABLE legacy for the cost AND there was unnecessary spending on multiple missions.

Suppose 40 years ago, that money had been spent on perfecting reusable rockets with low launch costs?
We would already have had a commercially sustainable earth-orbital industry.

My view is that the primary focus of the LM-9 should be on reducing launch costs, which requires a focus on reusability, simplicity and reliability.
That is what will drive mass production of rockets for low-cost launches, and there is now proven demand for thousands more satellites.

The secondary focus should be on finding a way to making a lunar base financially self-sustaining.
Setting up that base and figuring out a viable business model will drive the development of new technologies.

 

[taxiya]

If you're just looking to develop new technologies, the Apollo programme was very inefficient because it left very little SUSTAINABLE legacy for the cost AND there was unnecessary spending on multiple missions.

Suppose 40 years ago, that money had been spent on perfecting reusable rockets with low launch costs?
We would already have had a commercially sustainable earth-orbital industry.

My view is that the primary focus of the LM-9 should be on reducing launch costs, which requires a focus on reusability, simplicity and reliability.
That is what will drive mass production of rockets for low-cost launches, and there is now proven demand for thousands more satellites.

The secondary focus should be on finding a way to making a lunar base financially self-sustaining.
Setting up that base and figuring out a viable business model will drive the development of new technologies.

And yet SpaceX (the champion of reusable rocket) is using every bit of technology that all trace back to Apollo program. If you count the spendings in Apollo into SpaceX, you would see that Apollo is very efficient and left great sustainable legacy. I dare to say that all rocket technologies in US is the children of Apollo. Through Apollo program, US established the full range of technologies for space industry which spreads out in various companies and passed on by generations of engineers, some of them then joined SpaceX to make F9 and Merlin. Who paid for the knowledge and experience these people possess? NASA through Apollo program.

Just give you some example, check the ancestry of Merlin engine. It is developed from an earlier engine by one of the NASA contractor. Apollo as any other NASA programs back then was run by the same way, if you call Apollo as waste and unwise, then you are calling the whole US space history a waste.

You can not suppose. What-If is as pointless as "travel back in time and kill Hitler to stop WWII". We come to this point of time is because we went through every step that we have taken.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A little bird told me that the payload of the CZ-2F launch on September 4th is a Chinese space plane.