There is, just one, it is a LEASH from America just like CPUs etc.
China's Space Program News Thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
Quickie
Colonel
I think it's different. The Starship floated on its belly with the help of its 4 fins for a minute or two with the rocket engines turned off. The engines were only turned back on when the rocket attempted to land.
Very true. It is built on the shoulder of a giant.
It is only at top of LEO to MEO reusable launches.
It is still trying to catch up the same engine performance in class of SSME or RD-0120 that were made decades ago.
It is still trying to catch up the same payload class of rockets such as Saturn V and N-1 decades ago.
There is no trouble to China because US and China does not share the same market. US will never allow China to launch satellite made in US. Nor will China allow SpaceX or any American launchers to touch China's satellite. The countries outside of the two who is not able to make their own satellite or rocket will make choice based on geopolitical consideration rather than price. It is NOT free market like cars and smartphones.
I agree with the fanboys part. The other advantage (over other American companies) is his management skill that makes good use of the tech, talent and money.
Let's not base our discussion on the IF. Also, SpaceX has been shifting the goal post many times, so we don't even know what that "IF real" really stand for.
No, it will not be a huge problem if it is a problem at all. See the reason above.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
I don't find it impressive at all. In fact it's the same achievement that India got trying to land on the moon. 95% there is still not there.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Well, if it has fins and momentum, it's gonna glide for a while. Missile engines can pulse on and off too with the missile gliding at times. I'm really not trying rip SpaceX; I want to understand what was impressive. From how Musk was happy about it (or at least showing that he was), I'd be lead to believe that something great was achieved but I can't see it. Somebody please point it out to me, a novice in rocket technology knowledge.
Last edited:
I saw the video of Starship...it was really impressive for the amount of aerodynamic control demonstrated in such a LARGE flying object. As mentioned above though, much of it is the same technology used for super maneuverability in advanced jets performing stall maneuvers with thrust vectoring technology. However, there are many many hurdles left before any body is setting foot on Mars. Until we discover anti-gravity engines, space travel is still going to be limited by the tyranny of the rocket equation.
I think Musk should be praised for using the profits from SpaceX into investing in something like this. Essentially he is using his own money and that of others like that Japanese businessman to attempt something that may take many many years before realizing any returns. Who pays for colonizing of Mars anyways? There's an idea that tourism flights to and around the moon may come sooner than we think. Anyone going on that thing for a 60 minute flight from New York to Shanghai?
Some random milestones that need to happen after they land this thing, which I believe will happen within the next few attempts, before anything is being sent to Mars
1. successful development of the 1st stage 'Super Heavy' rocket launching this thing into orbit
2. adding heat resistance tiles
3. launch of the combined rocket into orbit, and successful recovery of both
4. orbital refueling from a Starship Tanker version
Now due to Mars thin atmosphere, terminal velocity will be 6x greater than what we just saw here. Think about the belly flop manuever. For any passengers, that's going to be the pirate ship ride at the amusement part from hell.
Anyways, I just watched a few youtube videos that's all.
I think Musk should be praised for using the profits from SpaceX into investing in something like this. Essentially he is using his own money and that of others like that Japanese businessman to attempt something that may take many many years before realizing any returns. Who pays for colonizing of Mars anyways? There's an idea that tourism flights to and around the moon may come sooner than we think. Anyone going on that thing for a 60 minute flight from New York to Shanghai?
Some random milestones that need to happen after they land this thing, which I believe will happen within the next few attempts, before anything is being sent to Mars
1. successful development of the 1st stage 'Super Heavy' rocket launching this thing into orbit
2. adding heat resistance tiles
3. launch of the combined rocket into orbit, and successful recovery of both
4. orbital refueling from a Starship Tanker version
Now due to Mars thin atmosphere, terminal velocity will be 6x greater than what we just saw here. Think about the belly flop manuever. For any passengers, that's going to be the pirate ship ride at the amusement part from hell.
Anyways, I just watched a few youtube videos that's all.
It's less a glide and more like a controlled stall. Think falling leaf.
This is actually the same way some toy rockets come back down slowly without parachutes. The center of gravity is close enough to the center of pressure that the rocket falls down on its side, increasing drag. Starship scales this technique up to orbital rockets.
Isn't this the first launch of a Stainless Steel Rocket? That by itself is very impressive. The Rocket attempting to land is impressive too. This is to certify the first rocket made out of steel and that means a lot to cost savings. SpaceX must be commended for its innovation.
If anything, SpaceX has proved/is in the process of proving that Stainless Steel is a viable material for manufacturing rockets. China could use that information a lot.
There is a cult centered around Elon Musk. There is an overwhelming faith and following for him (specifically from a very identifiable demography). If we can look past that and see Mr. Musk for what he really is - a very good entrepreneur and Businessman - then that'll be good.
I personally have some reservations regarding his motives and ideals (money ofc is a given but he once tweeted about the Bolivian elections and "coups") . Something about him, his relation to US, views etc doesn't sit right with me and mine.
His program for Global Satellite internet and Rapid Commercial Launches seem to be having great support from the newly established American Space Force. That is another thing.
If anything, SpaceX has proved/is in the process of proving that Stainless Steel is a viable material for manufacturing rockets. China could use that information a lot.
There is a cult centered around Elon Musk. There is an overwhelming faith and following for him (specifically from a very identifiable demography). If we can look past that and see Mr. Musk for what he really is - a very good entrepreneur and Businessman - then that'll be good.
I personally have some reservations regarding his motives and ideals (money ofc is a given but he once tweeted about the Bolivian elections and "coups") . Something about him, his relation to US, views etc doesn't sit right with me and mine.
His program for Global Satellite internet and Rapid Commercial Launches seem to be having great support from the newly established American Space Force. That is another thing.
You guys may laugh at it now but SSO reusable rockets are the future. The first automobiles and planes were also unimpressive. Look at where they are now.
You are dead wrong about that. The Raptor engine is the first full-flow staged combustion engine that has flown. That *is* a big thing. It was attempted in the past both in the Soviet Union and the USA but it never went past bench testing because of its design complexity. In some cases the prototypes exploded on the test stand in other cases they never went past subscale tests. It also works on LOX/Methane and is actually the first launcher engine using that fuel combination. Which again has been talked about for decades but never actually been used. It is futile to compare it with the SSME or RD-0120 on specific impulse because it will never have the same specific impulse because of the fuel combination they chose. The fuel was specifically chosen to have a combination of higher storage density than hydrogen and higher Isp than kerosene. So it will have Isp between both fuels. No it is not less advanced, it is in fact more advanced than the SSME. It uses a more advanced engine cycle, it uses channel wall nozzle, it doesn't need those stupid resonance chambers, it is superior overall. You could argue that the RD-0120 has some design advantages in that it is lighter weight because it is a single shaft engine. But it still uses a less advanced combustion cycle.
The RD-0120 was in fact more advanced than the SSME because of the single shaft-design, no resonance chambers, and channel wall nozzle. Which proves some people on Youtube who say the Soviet Union never could do LOX/LH2 engines properly are in fact totally incorrect. The Soviets were late at the game but they in fact did it better than the USA.
The Soviets basically did an engine better than the SSME and did an oxygen rich LOX/Kerosene staged combustion engine for the same vehicle (Energia). Each a much greater achievement in propulsion technology than the Shuttle SSME design. But also part of the reason why they went bankrupt I guess. USA after the oil crisis and Nixon taking the dollar off the gold standard and getting into fiat currency had to nerf the Shuttle program so it used solids instead of LOX/Kerosene first stage. The Shuttle is a case study on how not to do cost cutting. The design changes in fact cost lives and made the program uneconomic against expendables setting the space launch industry back by at least three decades.
Well, sure, but the ability to launch larger payloads more cheaply, by at least an order of magnitude, is strategically and militarily significant. It means all sorts of things you wouldn't launch can be launched. Like a high resolution satellite constellation which covers the entire Earth, or a space based long wave radar network, or even programs like Brilliant Pebbles ABM might return to the table.
China is not exactly out of the race though. The YF-100 engine technology is quite advanced and on par with the RD-171 family of engines. It if it is used in the 921 rocket as an expendable it has got great potential as a cheaper launcher than Long March 5. It would not be surprised if it cost like 1:2 or 1:3. To decrease cost further they need to make it reusable. I think they have enough design expertise right now where they could design a multiple reusable LOX/Methane rocket with staged combustion (not full-flow staged combustion) and get it to work. Make it deeply throttleable and you can make a nice reusable rocket.
I still think Starship is too large for its own good and reusing the second stage in the way they want to do it will be uneconomic but at least SpaceX are trying something new for a change.
Last edited:
- Status