China's Space Program News Thread

[AndrewS]

Enough of the cost structure is outlined below.

In a briefing earlier this year, SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris said the company can “bring launches down to below $30 million per launch.”

″[The rocket] costs $28 million to launch it, that’s with everything,” Couluris said, adding that reusing the rockets is what is “bringing the price down.”

---

The boosters, which SpaceX has often landed, make up about 60% of the total cost of the rocket, or about $37 million. SpaceX has also been able to recover the fairings – which make up about 10% of the total cost, or about $6 million – by either fishing them out of the ocean or catching them in large nets strung up behind boats.

---
“You’ve got the boost stage is probably close to 60 percent of the cost, the upper stage is about 20 percent of the cost, fairing is about 10 percent and then about 10 percent which is associated with the launch itself

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[siegecrossbow]

This is not a SpaceX thread. Can we get back on topic please?

 

[gelgoog]

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.

Space based solar power isn't economical unless you have huge superheavy deep reusable launchers. Otherwise the launch costs alone would make it cheaper to just build nuclear power plants or whatever. All for what, getting double the power you would get in a terrestrial solar power installation at a hundred times the price? Not worth it.

 

[Blitzo]

Space based solar power isn't economical unless you have huge superheavy deep reusable launchers. Otherwise the launch costs alone would make it cheaper to just build nuclear power plants or whatever. All for what, getting double the power you would get in a terrestrial solar power installation at a hundred times the price? Not worth it.

I don't care so much about whether solar based power is economical or the best way to generate power. My point was that the mere idea of it meant that they must be thinking about the prospect of sustained high frequency super heavy launches to make it possible.

I've jokingly talked about the ability to annually launch 100,000 tons into LEO in a couple of decades, but I am only half joking.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

Those could certainly be true, but a difference of less than 100 tons of thrust surely must not be that significant in terms of the market sector, when considering the alternative costs and requirement of developing a whole new engine and rocket to begin with.

After all, prior to Falcon 9, the weight class it currently occupies was hardly the most popular for economical launched -- if anything Falcon helped to popularize its own market segment.
I see no reason why reusable single and triple core CZ-5DY couldn't also do something similar.
That is to say, I think what is economical for a given throw weight class for a rocket depends on the rocket itself. The payloads will eventually be developed in a way to accommodate the rocket.

In regards to crew rating -- a non-crew rated variant of CZ-5DY in both single and triple core configurations surely would also help to further reduce costs.

I wonder if they may be developing this YF-102R as a product for private space companies or perhaps even for other nations, and that they will look to develop resuable YF-100K and VTVL CZ-5DY for domestic govt use instead.

It would utterly befuddle me if a VTVL CZ-5DY in some form was not eventually developed given the core systems it will share with CZ-8R and the very VTVL friendly engine configuration of clusters of 7.

 

[iantsai]

A Shijian seires technical verification satelite will be launched by a CZ-7 rocket at Wenchang Satelite Launching Center, Dec 23.

The local government issued an routine announcement today on traffic restrictions to the roads near the launch site in Dec 23.

The rocket / satelite was schemed to transfer to the launching site in Dec 20, but delayed one day for an approaching typhoon.

 

[Engineer]

I don't care so much about whether solar based power is economical or the best way to generate power. My point was that the mere idea of it meant that they must be thinking about the prospect of sustained high frequency super heavy launches to make it possible.

I've jokingly talked about the ability to annually launch 100,000 tons into LEO in a couple of decades, but I am only half joking.

The idea of using multiple existing launchers to do the job of one bigger yet-to-exist launcher is always the first to come up then ultimately gets discarded. It does not help your argument one bit. Also, any mission that requires double-digit launches is simply unrealistic.

If they were serious about building a 10,000 superstructure in space, they would most certainly go for a mega launcher with 1000 tons lift capability, just like the US and Soviets had envisioned when those two were thinking about building superstructures in space.

 

[plawolf]

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 would hardly say China was ‘caught unawares’, since reusable rockets is hardly a new idea nor is the technology involved all that revolutionary.

The key question was never whether it can be done, but rather whether if it is worth doing, with the key question one of cost effectiveness. So SpaceX’s books is very much at the heart of this equation. If they are making money purely on the launches, that’s one thing. It’s another thing entirely if they are a loss leader surviving on government grants and venture capital bailouts, sorry, cash injections.

SpaceX has probably given enough ammunition to the side inside China arguing for reusables that they are now pressing ahead with some test designs, but that’s far from evidence China is going all in on reusable rockets or that reusables are the holy grail of space flight.

I think it’s probably going to be a bit of a split market with reusables making sense for some market segments and not for others.

In my view, unless there is some paradigm shifting new breakthrough in propulsion tech, reusables will be hard pressed to beat out traditional rockets in super heavies because the bigger the rocket, the more fuel you need to keep in reserve for its recovery. In addition, the bigger the rocket, the more we are pushing at the limits of our current tech capabilities, which means more risk and higher complexity, which all equals to bad maths for reusable.

When we look at SpaceX, we need to remember that Elon’s ultimate goal is Mars colonisation, so it would be a grave mistake to omitted that cornerstone driver from consideration when evaluating his choices. I believe that is the main reason he is always pushing for bigger rockets, and not because that is what makes most sense for the tasks at hand. For him, terrestrial space launches are just the means to his ultimate ends.

For reusable rockets, I think the current best niche in the market is for low weight launches for low value payload.

I think reusables would make perfect sense for nano satellite launches and space station resupply etc, where the payload is essentially expendable and easily replaced. That way you can go with a ‘good enough’ approach to safety margins, which in turn will keep your costs competitive. In the future, reusables will also make a lot of sense for satellite servicing missions and space debris removal missions. So there is a lot of scope for it, but I do not see it fully replacing one use rockets for a lot of missions.

 

[AndrewS]

In my view, unless there is some paradigm shifting new breakthrough in propulsion tech, reusables will be hard pressed to beat out traditional rockets in super heavies because the bigger the rocket, the more fuel you need to keep in reserve for its recovery. In addition, the bigger the rocket, the more we are pushing at the limits of our current tech capabilities, which means more risk and higher complexity, which all equals to bad maths for reusable.

With larger rockets, you need proportionately less fuel in reserve than with smaller rockets.
And with SpaceX, I'm actually seeing more redundancy being built in, when compared with a smaller rocket.

When we look at SpaceX, we need to remember that Elon’s ultimate goal is Mars colonisation, so it would be a grave mistake to omitted that cornerstone driver from consideration when evaluating his choices. I believe that is the main reason he is always pushing for bigger rockets, and not because that is what makes most sense for the tasks at hand. For him, terrestrial space launches are just the means to his ultimate ends.

For reusable rockets, I think the current best niche in the market is for low weight launches for low value payload.

I think reusables would make perfect sense for nano satellite launches and space station resupply etc, where the payload is essentially expendable and easily replaced. That way you can go with a ‘good enough’ approach to safety margins, which in turn will keep your costs competitive. In the future, reusables will also make a lot of sense for satellite servicing missions and space debris removal missions. So there is a lot of scope for it, but I do not see it fully replacing one use rockets for a lot of missions.

The Falcon 9 is already offering a "rideshare" service where a LEO satellite up to 200kg costs $1M to launch, or 300kg for $1.5M
How many single-use rocket launches cost less than this?

Even the single-use Kuaizhou-1A is still $6M for 300kg to LEO

---

At the moment, the reusable Falcon 9 has a launch cost of $28M.
But if the upcoming Starship has even lower launch costs (say $10M-$20M), it will be even more competitive against single-use rockets.

 

[enroger]

I don't care so much about whether solar based power is economical or the best way to generate power. My point was that the mere idea of it meant that they must be thinking about the prospect of sustained high frequency super heavy launches to make it possible.

I've jokingly talked about the ability to annually launch 100,000 tons into LEO in a couple of decades, but I am only half joking.

If you want a scenario where mass launch in that order is required, I'd suggest moon and asteroid mining operation.

Moon in particular, whoever build the first lunar mass accelerator capable of catapulting mass directly into earth will own the earth in both commercial and military sense.