China's Space Program News Thread

[Richard Santos]

Are they gonna go the "put a man on the moon before the decade is out" routine as well?

Pointless. Kennedy did it because that was a deadline that the US had much better chance of beating than the Soviets, it was already clear military rocketry was going its separate ways from actually space flight rocketry, so rising cost of space flight might become a bigger future impediment to future space exploration than it had up to that time. So by announcing it as a goal he could strong army the rest of government into working hard to actually beat it and not gradually give up as cost rolls in.

The Chinese are unlikely to beat the Americans back to the moon. So setting a deadline is totally pointless.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The Chinese are unlikely to beat the Americans back to the moon. So setting a deadline is totally pointless.

Don't confuse rhetoric for actual achievements.

 

[Blitzo]

@Bltizo @9dashline

Here is why Starship is useless/irrelevant:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Was that because there's no previously existing demand that can now be created by additional heavy lift vehicles? No. Notice how the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and even Falcon Heavy has never flown at claimed maximum payload.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2021 was not much better; out of 28 total launches of the Falcon 9, 17 were internal launches for Starlink.

That means that outside of Starlink, supply exceed demand for launch services and increases in demand will be related to Starlink.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if SpaceX completely monopolizes the US market at the 1990-2010 average (~30 launches) and then expands it 2x due to induced demand, that's just 60 launches per year. At the quoted price for Falcon 9 expendable for $60M per launch, that's just $3.6 billion. That is essentially their revenue cap under best circumstances.

What are their profit margins? I don't know because they're a privately held company but even a 50% margin better than Apple gives them a profit cap of $1.8 billion. But there's not much room for such a ridiculous margin, since Apple is able to command such a margin because 1. much of their value added is in software with zero marginal cost and 2. they sell to consumers who are easy to con into paying more than the strict price of hardware + assembly + shipping.

SpaceX value added meanwhile is 100% hardware - which has a high marginal cost in aerospace - and sell to sophisticated, cost conscious customers. They have no room to improve profit margin by raising costs and must decrease costs, but costs can only go down so much. With capped revenue and capped profit margin, they only have so much to spare into R&D while maintaining operations. But what is their R&D going into? A launch service with no demand.

That is why Elon Musk says that success of Starlink and Starship is linked - there's no demand for it outside Starlink, but there's no demand for Starlink without Starship due to high maintenance costs. That's why he sent an angry email fuming about possible bankruptcy.

"Lack of a market" -- I would argue this is because that the space launch industry and also the governments that make up the bulk of the customer base for the space launch industry have yet to recognize the market potential that exists.

Governments, especially military services, once they recognize the utility that a more affordable and reusable launch system opens up, will almost certainly take advantage of the option and develop new, larger payloads for space and LEO and GEO in particular.

The ability to put 100 tons of singular payload with a reusable first stage will open up massive options for space based observation, ISR, and ultimately space based warfare that previously never existed with single use heavy and super heavy launchers.


More importantly, even if SpaceX itself as a private company eventually fails, the demonstrated technologies of reusable first stages and the demonstrated greater affordability will ultimately remain and be inherited by either a successor company or the US government in some form.
And this is assuming that the development of these new affordable, higher frequency, reusable launchers will not simply create their own demand as governments line up to exploit it for security and military uses (initially).
In the longer term, the ability to create space based infrastructure and habitats in support of lunar, interplanetary or asteroid missions (manned and unmanned) for economic purposes will also emerge.


SpaceX may or may not succeed.
But the ability and imperative to put massive payloads into orbit affordably, consistently, and often, should be a major goal for human development. At present, reusable first stages seem the most realistic way of doing so into the foreseeable future.

 

[Overbom]

I agree that reusability of upper stages for heavy lift vehicles are pretty irrelevant, and im sure, if US is able to make such pace of heavy launching, China can do it too. Super heavy first stage is not much technologically advanced, no reasons China not to do it the same with CZ-9s in mass launching/reusing...

Reusable first stage does not require cutting edge science/engineering for breaking new ground, but it needs innovative manufacturing processes

Thats where the game is. How to make as many reusable first stages, last long, while being very cheap, and quick to build. Obviously the engines also play a huge part in this

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

"Lack of a market" -- I would argue this is because that the space launch industry and also the governments that make up the bulk of the customer base for the space launch industry have yet to recognize the market potential that exists.

Governments, especially military services, once they recognize the utility that a more affordable and reusable launch system opens up, will almost certainly take advantage of the option and develop new, larger payloads for space and LEO and GEO in particular.

The ability to put 100 tons of singular payload with a reusable first stage will open up massive options for space based observation, ISR, and ultimately space based warfare that previously never existed with single use heavy and super heavy launchers.


More importantly, even if SpaceX itself as a private company eventually fails, the demonstrated technologies of reusable first stages and the demonstrated greater affordability will ultimately remain and be inherited by either a successor company or the US government in some form.
And this is assuming that the development of these new affordable, higher frequency, reusable launchers will not simply create their own demand as governments line up to exploit it for security and military uses (initially).
In the longer term, the ability to create space based infrastructure and habitats in support of lunar, interplanetary or asteroid missions (manned and unmanned) for economic purposes will also emerge.


SpaceX may or may not succeed.
But the ability and imperative to put massive payloads into orbit affordably, consistently, and often, should be a major goal for human development. At present, reusable first stages seem the most realistic way of doing so into the foreseeable future.

I accounted for the induced demand. The best case scenario is a doubling of demand and total monopoly by SpaceX... And it still isn't enough without internal launches for essentially a negative value product.

There are many other costs to reusable first stages: lower throw weight than expendables,
inspection costs, recovery costs, refurbishment costs, requirements for stronger materials, etc.

We don't actually know what SpaceX finances look like, so we are just guessing right now.

 

[Blitzo]

I accounted for the induced demand. The best case scenario is a doubling of demand and total monopoly by SpaceX... And it still isn't enough without internal launches for essentially a negative value product.

There are many other costs to reusable first stages: lower throw weight than expendables,
inspection costs, recovery costs, refurbishment costs, requirements for stronger materials, etc.

We don't actually know what SpaceX finances look like, so we are just guessing right now.

Sure.

But I want to emphasize that I'm not interested in the success of SpaceX as a company, rather I am talking about the successful development, production and industry, around the implications of a successful reusable first stage booster for heavy and super heavy class rockets.

Whether it is SpaceX that ends up reaping the profits of such reusable rockets, or if SpaceX collapses into nothingness, that is unimportant.
What is important, is that the technologies developed and demonstrated by them up to now will continue to exist and be inherited by someone, and into the foreseeable future reusable first stage rockets will likely remain the most affordable way to put large tonnage payloads into space in a repeated and consistent fashion.


Right now, the payloads that are put into earth orbit are constrained by rocket size and rocket launch frequency.
But the sheer implication of being able to put 100 ton payloads into earth orbit in a regular, consistent manner every year, is terrifying to behold.

Think about how many heavy and capable a modern low earth orbit ISR satellite is -- and then think about how much more capable a 100 ton low earth orbit ISR satellite could be, and the sheer fidelity of sensors, the extent of self defense capabilities, the additional propellant, that could be provided.
Then think about a nation that is able to launch 100 ton payloads into LEO or 20 tons into GEO regularly, say, 3-4 a month to start off with.

Even if such capabilities are not immediately exploited, you can bet that a government with access to that sort of launch capability will rapidly develop the payloads to fulfill it.
The potential for exploiting such a capability (reusable heavy and super heavy launch vehicles) I genuinely believe could produce strategic effects not dissimilar to the initial introduction of nuclear weapons.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Sure.

But I want to emphasize that I'm not interested in the success of SpaceX as a company, rather I am talking about the successful development, production and industry, around the implications of a successful reusable first stage booster for heavy and super heavy class rockets.

Whether it is SpaceX that ends up reaping the profits of such reusable rockets, or if SpaceX collapses into nothingness, that is unimportant.
What is important, is that the technologies developed and demonstrated by them up to now will continue to exist and be inherited by someone, and into the foreseeable future reusable first stage rockets will likely remain the most affordable way to put large tonnage payloads into space in a repeated and consistent fashion.


Right now, the payloads that are put into earth orbit are constrained by rocket size and rocket launch frequency.
But the sheer implication of being able to put 100 ton payloads into earth orbit in a regular, consistent manner every year, is terrifying to behold.

Think about how many heavy and capable a modern low earth orbit ISR satellite is -- and then think about how much more capable a 100 ton low earth orbit ISR satellite could be, and the sheer fidelity of sensors, the extent of self defense capabilities, the additional propellant, that could be provided.
Then think about a nation that is able to launch 100 ton payloads into LEO or 20 tons into GEO regularly, say, 3-4 a month to start off with.

Even if such capabilities are not immediately exploited, you can bet that a government with access to that sort of launch capability will rapidly develop the payloads to fulfill it.
The potential for exploiting such a capability (reusable heavy and super heavy launch vehicles) I genuinely believe could produce strategic effects not dissimilar to the initial introduction of nuclear weapons.

Reusability has its limits. I still am skeptical of it because nobody knows SpaceX finances. It could be that reusability never really breaks even after all.

If you want payload, expendables give the highest payload. There is no powered reusable that can have a payload greater than an expendable of equal mass and fuel fraction. This is because any powered descent must reserve fuel which can't be used to push payload. This last bit of fuel is also more valuable than the first bit of fuel since it is the only fuel that doesn't need to push more fuel and only pushes payload.

Expendables can also be built with the cheapest, flimsiest engines and tanks, reusables need higher quality to ensure actual reusability. They don't need inspection or recovery services. Every single component can be manufactured cheaper. The only time I'd consider a reusable better is an unpowered descent i.e. with parachutes jettisoning only the engines, so it avoids the last fuel issue.

Remember that SpaceX claims their expendables are still cheaper than ULA expendables so clearly the reusability part isn't important, if you believe SpaceX numbers.

 

[Blitzo]

Reusability has its limits. I still am skeptical of it because nobody knows SpaceX finances. It could be that reusability never really breaks even after all.

If you want payload, expendables give the highest payload. There is no powered reusable that can have a payload greater than an expendable of equal mass and fuel fraction. This is because any powered descent must reserve fuel which can't be used to push payload. This last bit of fuel is also more valuable than the first bit of fuel since it is the only fuel that doesn't need to push more fuel and only pushes payload.

Expendables can also be built with the cheapest, flimsiest engines and tanks, reusables need higher quality to ensure actual reusability. They don't need inspection or recovery services. Every single component can be manufactured cheaper. The only time I'd consider a reusable better is an unpowered descent i.e. with parachutes jettisoning only the engines, so it avoids the last fuel issue.

Remember that SpaceX claims their expendables are still cheaper than ULA expendables so clearly the reusability part isn't important, if you believe SpaceX numbers.

I agree that reusability has its limits -- but I believe that expendability has its limits as well.
If one wants to launch super heavy rockets, and emphasizing a certain mission profile, and only requiring a small number of launches per year, then sure, expendable super heavy rockets makes sense.

But if you have goals to launch more than a few hundred tons of payload per year into LEO -- if you want to annually launch let's say, 100,000 tons of payload into LEO per year, then you need reusable super heavies, because you definitely will not have the money to build 1000 expendable super heavy rockets per year.

Of course, the above is very much a longer term, more extreme take on the potential of reusable super heavies.

And I do understand the question you are asking -- basically "what if it doesn't work"?
But my counter question is -- "what if it does work"?

The consequences of not thoroughly investigating and seeking to develop this technology, at a time when it has been demonstrated to at least be technologically viable and relatively mature, and when the potential utility of it is so great, IMO far outweighs the consequences of developing it and finding out that it is infeasible.

If you develop the technology and find out it is infeasible, then it means you've wasted some time and money on a developmental route that is a deadend, but the R&D itself will still almost certainly have other applications for more traditional space launch methods and still benefit the industry and body of expertise.
But if you do not develop the technology and a competitor does develop it finds out it is feasible -- then it means the competitor could have a multi-decade long head start in space launch capacity that could be a magnitude greater than what your own annual space launch capacity is, with strategic consequences that could be unimaginable.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I agree that reusability has its limits -- but I believe that expendability has its limits as well.
If one wants to launch super heavy rockets, and emphasizing a certain mission profile, and only requiring a small number of launches per year, then sure, expendable super heavy rockets makes sense.

But if you have goals to launch more than a few hundred tons of payload per year into LEO -- if you want to annually launch let's say, 100,000 tons of payload into LEO per year, then you need reusable super heavies, because you definitely will not have the money to build 1000 expendable super heavy rockets per year.

Of course, the above is very much a longer term, more extreme take on the potential of reusable super heavies.

And I do understand the question you are asking -- basically "what if it doesn't work"?
But my counter question is -- "what if it does work"?

The consequences of not thoroughly investigating and seeking to develop this technology, at a time when it has been demonstrated to at least be technologically viable and relatively mature, and when the potential utility of it is so great, IMO far outweighs the consequences of developing it and finding out that it is infeasible.

If you develop the technology and find out it is infeasible, then it means you've wasted some time and money on a developmental route that is a deadend, but the R&D itself will still almost certainly have other applications for more traditional space launch methods and still benefit the industry and body of expertise.
But if you do not develop the technology and a competitor does develop it finds out it is feasible -- then it means the competitor could have a multi-decade long head start in space launch capacity that could be a magnitude greater than what your own annual space launch capacity is, with strategic consequences that could be unimaginable.

There's always an opportunity cost.

What if you used the money for R&D of powered reusable first stages and put it into R&D of super cheap expendables with essentially throwaway cost structures that don't need to be hardened?

Or into parachute recoverable engines so you cut the cost of tank reinforcement, recovery and inspection, saving only the highest value added part and having equal throw weight as expendables?

there's many opportunities here that in my view are better than powered reusables.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So who's to say that powered reusables are the way to go?

 

[NiuBiDaRen]

Exciting! A source of positivity, and great graphics