China's Space Program News Thread

[tiancai8888]

Given that we know that China is pursuing reusable technologies, but at an earlier stage -- see the CZ-8R, and the YF-102R engine that I posted above -- I think it is far more likely that China has simply been caught unawares as to the potential of reusable first stages and might currently be considering the strategic direction in which it wants to go, and how ambitious it wants to be.

A historical combination of less money, and less cumulative industry expertise and technology, I think is the best explanation for this.


That is why I see the CZ-5DY and the CZ-9(21) to be potentially so significant -- because they both have configurations that could be very amenable to first stage reuse, allowing them to reduce costs of development but more importantly to reduce the time of development.

But I believe they now have the money, and they have the technology (or will soon have it) to pursue such systems, it only becomes one of ambition.

Long Lehao has talked about the idea of a 10,000 ton space based solar power station in GEO, by 2050, that would require over 100 CZ-9 launches.
That is the exact kind of big idea project that should be pursued and encouraged, and is an encouraging sign that they recognize the importance of high paced and regular super heavy launches.


View attachment 80101

I think China already have the tech. CNSA have already tested the stage reentry control(grid fins), booster parachute recovery & fairings recovery. What's only left is to actually land the stage.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

My argument is that SpaceX's actual financials should not be an inhibiting factor for significantly investigating and developing the current most consistently and repeatedly demonstrated, reusable first stage technology.

I am saying that "we'll see" is not good enough, because that implies one will not be investigating and developing the technology and waiting to see if someone else can develop and demonstrate it first.
With the inevitable conclusion that if someone else arrives there and discovers it's successful, before you've seriously began to develop it for yourself, then you lose out on potentially years or decades of elapsed launch time.

but that's the entire point. if SpaceX loses money, breaks even or just fails to get costs below that of expendables, then it's a failure.

so far nobody has been able to demonstrate that reusables have met their goal - to reduce launch costs to SpaceX aspirational costs of $100 per kg or even $1000 kg per ton.

and even if they did, assuming that all SpaceX quoted numbers are 100% true, accurate and complete, their expendables are still cheaper than ULA so that merely means that SpaceX is managed better than ULA.

 

[Blitzo]

but that's the entire point. if SpaceX loses money, breaks even or just fails to get costs below that of expendables, then it's a failure.

so far nobody has been able to demonstrate that reusables have met their goal - to reduce launch costs to SpaceX aspirational costs of $100 per kg or even $1000 kg per ton.

and even if they did, assuming that all SpaceX quoted numbers are 100% true, accurate and complete, their expendables are still cheaper than ULA so that merely means that SpaceX is managed better than ULA.

None of this is a sufficiently good reason for other nations (in this case China) to not also robustly investigate and develop at least a reusable first stage for a medium and heavy rocket.

I think China already have the tech. CNSA have already tested the stage reentry control(grid fins), booster parachute recovery & fairings recovery. What's only left is to actually land the stage.
View attachment 80102View attachment 80103View attachment 80104

No, what they demonstrated with the CZ-2s was gridfins that allows them to control where they want to crash the first stage with meaningfully greater accuracy than just letting it fall to earth.
However the entire first stage itself is still not able to be reused as when it returns to earth it ultimately crashes rather than lands.
They certainly have the technology to develop the full spectrum of systems to enable proper VTVL reusable first stages, but as a complete product it has yet to be shown.

They are making efforts to demonstrate proper VTVL with the CZ-8R (relevant paper here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) -- and it is better late than never.







A few Chinese private space launch enterprises are hoping to achieve it too of course, with some hop tests done, but they are far less well resourced than CNSA.

 

[AndrewS]

but that's the entire point. if SpaceX loses money, breaks even or just fails to get costs below that of expendables, then it's a failure.

SpaceX have demonstrated that reusable rockets are cheaper than Expendables.

A new Falcon 9 launch costs $62M, but a reused rocket launch costs $28M.

so far nobody has been able to demonstrate that reusables have met their goal - to reduce launch costs to SpaceX aspirational costs of $100 per kg or even $1000 kg per ton.

SpaceX are now down to $1647 per kg.
$1000 per kg is within reach in a few years.

and even if they did, assuming that all SpaceX quoted numbers are 100% true, accurate and complete, their expendables are still cheaper than ULA so that merely means that SpaceX is managed better than ULA.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

SpaceX have demonstrated that reusable rockets are cheaper than Expendables.

A new Falcon 9 launch costs $62M, but a reused rocket launch costs $28M.





SpaceX are now down to $1647 per kg.
$1000 per kg is within reach in a few years.

you have demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the difference between claims and actual proof, since you still have no answer to the fact that you were factually wrong about SpaceX having anything to do with the SEC.

 

[AndrewS]

you have demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the difference between claims and actual proof, since you still have no answer to the fact that you were factually wrong about SpaceX having anything to do with the SEC.

No. The SEC does charge company officers when they make false or misleading statements.

And if you did into the costings, you can find the next level of detail in terms of the Falcon 9 costing splits. These appear entirely reasonable and are made by multiple company officers.

On this forum, we do spend a lot of time speculating on the capabilities and costs of various Chinese systems, because there is no information. The SpaceX business model is a whole lot easier.

 

[Overbom]

You can watch the short video of the engine test in the link given by the tweet

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1472886465831055361

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

No. The SEC does charge company officers when they make false or misleading statements.

And if you did into the costings, you can find the next level of detail in terms of the Falcon 9 costing splits. These appear entirely reasonable and are made by multiple company officers.

On this forum, we do spend a lot of time speculating on the capabilities and costs of various Chinese systems, because there is no information. The SpaceX business model is a whole lot easier.

I can't find the claimed SpaceX cost structure. Apparently neither can anyone else except guesses.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Incidentally Musk is already in trouble with the SEC and has 1000+ pending lawsuits.

 

[taxiya]

I've just noted that the CZ-8R rocket intended for first stage reusability (aimed to fly next year in 2022, but we will see), is intended to be powered by 2x YF-100K in its core, and two boosters each with one YF-100K acting as ballast.
That is to say, the YF-100K will be the engine that will be enabling CZ-8R to attain VTVL reusability.

If that is the case, then I hold a slight degree of suspicion/hope that the CZ-5DY which uses the same engine, could relatively easily apply technologies (perhaps soon to be demonstrated/proven on CZ-8R) for itself, and develop a reusable variant relatively easily -- perhaps a CZ-5DY-R... and that the only reason they have yet to announce it, is for typical Chinese low profile/caution, but that once key VTVL technologies are verified, they would be confident enough to pursue it publicly.

I agree. I would dare to have a higher degree of hope.

If CZ-8R can do VTVL, then it is even easier for CZ-5DY to do so. IMO, CZ-8R with its 1+2+1 configuration is pretty challenging in doing VTVL, it need deeper throttling than the known 65% of YF-100 (we don't know YF-100K yet), the 4 engine config also present the challenge of running a single off-center engine for landing.

 

[taxiya]

More specific talk about Chinese efforts for reusable rockets...

At least it appears that CASC are seriously looking into reusable first stages, with the reusable YF-102R engine proposed to be ready for 2026, with one depiction of it being a nine cluster configuration that would basically be the same as Falcon 9, and the engine itself in a thrust class basically the same as the SpaceX Merlin.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1442420510810247169

View attachment 80095



If it ends up being ready for 2026, well, that is better late than never, however YF-102R and a new nine cluster configuration would mean a new rocket, and for the life of me I do not know why they wouldn't simply choose to adapt the CZ-5DY and its YF-100K for reusabililty instead given it is already committed to for the lunar mission, instead of pursuing a whole new family of both rockets and engines.

This engine is almost identical to Merlin-1D (sea level 854kN). The 9 cluster config would be a Falcon 9 equivalent.

Two reasons that I can come up with:

1. The engine is open cycle, light and cheap. The rocket would be much cheaper too because it won't be human rated.
2. The total lift off thrust is 9 x 83.5t = 751.5t. Much lower than 7 x 120 = 840t of CZ-5DY core. It is much closer to the desired market sector. CZ-5DY is just too capable.

CZ-5DY and its single core derivative is meant only for human rated launches. If they can save something by reusing the first stage for non-crewed mission, that is a great bonus. But it is still bit too expansive compared with a cheaper rocket and over-kill for popular payload.