China's Space Program Thread II

[by78]

A progress update on the Hainan spaceport for commercial launches. Launch tower at Launchpad No.1 will be capped later this month, earthworks for launchpad No. 2 is almost complete, and the entire spaceport will be finished by the end of this year.

Launchpad no. 1 of Hainan Commercial Spaceport has been capped. According to Mr. Wu Yitian, the chief of the Hainan Commercial Spaceport construction project, launchpad no. 1 will be used to launch StarNet satellites in the first half of 2024. StarNet is the Chinese competitor to the Starlink.

 

[by78]

Three more high-resolution images from yesterday's Tianzhou-6 launch.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Interesting that is what the text says because the slide seems to have the rockets lined up at different points on the "timeline" (e.g. the three stage version lined up around late 2030s rather than 2033).

One other interesting question I have is why is the 2 stage variant meant to launch so much later than the 3 stage variant, given the 2 stage variant should technically be simpler than the 3 stage variant (after all a stage is deleted).

I raise this, as I find the utility and importance of reusable regular LEO launches as more important for super heavies than LTO launches.

I've been thinking a bit about this, and China's apparent nonchalance in obtaining a super-heavy LEO launcher in general, and I think the answer is that they're not well suited to launching satellite constellations. The problem is that unless you're launching all the satellites on the same orbital plane, you'll be paying a very heavy fuel penalty as shifting planes while in orbit is a very expensive manoeuvre.

I haven't run any numbers, but it seems likely to me that launching the same payload on multiple smaller (still reusable) rockets would be a cheaper proposition since the rockets can be set on different orbital planes at launch (during pitch over).

Where super-heavy LEO launchers shine is sending up gargantuan unitary payloads, like a Tiangong-sized space station in one shot or assembling a mega-station in several launches.

 

[Blitzo]

I've been thinking a bit about this, and China's apparent nonchalance in obtaining a super-heavy LEO launcher in general, and I think the answer is that they're not well suited to launching satellite constellations. The problem is that unless you're launching all the satellites on the same orbital plane, you'll be paying a very heavy fuel penalty as shifting planes while in orbit is a very expensive manoeuvre.

I haven't run any numbers, but it seems likely to me that launching the same payload on multiple smaller (still reusable) rockets would be a cheaper proposition since the rockets can be set on different orbital planes at launch (during pitch over).

Where super-heavy LEO launchers shine is sending up gargantuan unitary payloads, like a Tiangong-sized space station in one shot or assembling a mega-station in several launches.

Yes, well for the record my view on the value for super heavies is for large unitary payloads, rather than putting up many small sized payloads like constellations of satellites in one go.

 

[tankphobia]

Yes, well for the record my view on the value for super heavies is for large unitary payloads, rather than putting up many small sized payloads like constellations of satellites in one go.

Would it not be less important for mega constellations like star link where you're throwing up thousands of satellites? At that point orbits are close enough that satellites can be mass launched.

 

[stoa1984]

I've been thinking a bit about this, and China's apparent nonchalance in obtaining a super-heavy LEO launcher in general, and I think the answer is that they're not well suited to launching satellite constellations. The problem is that unless you're launching all the satellites on the same orbital plane, you'll be paying a very heavy fuel penalty as shifting planes while in orbit is a very expensive manoeuvre.

I haven't run any numbers, but it seems likely to me that launching the same payload on multiple smaller (still reusable) rockets would be a cheaper proposition since the rockets can be set on different orbital planes at launch (during pitch over).

Where super-heavy LEO launchers shine is sending up gargantuan unitary payloads, like a Tiangong-sized space station in one shot or assembling a mega-station in several launches.

Bro, it is a space race between 2 superpowers!

The numbers of payloads are mind boggling, i.e. unprecedented in history.

No small VTVL reusable SLV can make it, if time is the critical factor. Again it is the Sino-American space race.

Only super-heavy reusable VTVL SLV can place in one launch an entire orbital plane into LEO.

If one advanced satellite of the Starlink 2.0-class has a mass of 1250 kg instead of the small 260 kg of the type V1.0 and ~306 kg of the type v1.5, it requires indeed a payload capacity of 150 tons into LEO plus a payload fairing of 9 meter diameter.

But keep in mind that the size of the phased array antenna has to increase further if one wants to achieve full satellite connectivity with mobile device. The benchmark. Internet service anywhere on Earth with a mobile phone only and no additional antenna, outdoor and indoor.

The test satellite Bluewalker-3 has established mobile device connection for the first time recently (April 2023), with a 8.0 x 8.0 meters phased array antenna (64 sq meters).

And the full size Bluebirds satellites was a year ago stated as 30x30 m (900 square meters),

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This means a phased array antenna size of 30m x 30m (900 square meters) for the expected Starlink 3.0-class.

Only Starship Version 2.0 with a 18 meters diameter fairing will be able to place an entire orbital plane of these gigantic satellites!

This means the next rocket might be able to launch over 1000 tons per launch.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And the completed Starlink constellation should reach 42'000 satellites!

Meanwhile, China wants to complete an array of about 12'000 Guowang satellites for its Proliferated Low Earth Orbit (pLEO) constellation for internet service, plus 12'000 satellites for its Infinite Energy Space Microwave Power Plant (无限光辉全球空间太阳能电站星座) by 2030.

With such a tight schedule, only feasible with super heavy Starship 2.0-class VTVL launcher or call it CZ-9 2.0 VTVL SLV.

Notice that orbital shells are not infinite but limited, and that based on the first come first serve basis, anything less than being number one will not be enough.

For this end the U.S. has resorted to a SATELLITE BLOCKER strategy to frustrate China's rise and ensure its own monopoly on the use of satellite mega-constellations:

Shock plan for 327,000 satellite constellation

A proposal for a 327,000 satellite constellation - the biggest ever - has been filed with the International Telecommunications Union on behalf of Marvel Space, a company apparently backed by 03B Networks and OneWeb founder Greg Wyler. Just 11,300 objects have been launched into space in the 64 years since the first Sputnik satellite.

Wyler has returned to Rwanda to file the proposal, where he first started his telecoms journey as founder of fibre-to-the-home ISP Terracom, before moving on to space. Rwanda's government was also an investor in OneWeb before it went bankrupt.

According to industry insiders, Wyler is behind the Rwandan government submission to the International Telecommunications Union for spectrum to support a new satellite constellation, denoted as CINNAMON-217 and CINNAMON-937.The original filing in August, named ANTON-1N0, contained errors, so Rwanda/Marvel Space filed two additional constellations: CINNAMON-217 and CINNAMON-937. CINNAMON-217 has the same frequencies and beams as CINNAMON-937, but fewer orbital planes and satellites.

The Rwandan submission is in the name of Marvel Space Communications Co and details a constellation made up of 27 orbital shells at altitudes of between 550 and 640 kilometres. 26 of the shells will have 36 planes hosting 360 satellites each, or 12,960 satellites per shell, while the lowest of the shells at 500km will have a single plane with 360 satellites. In total the constellation will consist of a whopping 327,320 satellites, although adding up the satellites in all planes results in 337,320.

The orbits are stated to be circular, and usable until 280 km altitude as they decay, suggesting these are micro, non-propulsive satellites. One industry insider said: "Think Swarm on steroids."

Very little else is known about the plan and the Rwandan government has asked the ITU not to publish the submission publicly until it is ready to move ahead with approving it. Rwanda points to concerns that technical issues with the submission could cause delays, which would give time for competitors to "copy our ideas and submit filings before us." Although the Rwandan government assures the ITU that the network can operate without interfering with other networks, the plans have failed to convince long-time satellite industry insider, Tom Choi, the founder and ex-CEO of Asia Broadcast Satellite and Speedcast and the current lead behind wireless and space tech developer Airspace Internet Exchange.

Choi, who links the Rwandan submission to Wyler, wrote on LinkedIn: "The spectrum he filed (sic) are not allocated for space-to-earth communications and could result in devastating amount of interference to projects like AST Science who are planning to work with mobile operators for their spectrum and potentially other licensed constellations like Iridium and Globalstar with harmonic interference."

Glen Tindall, CEO of EOS Communication Systems, a unit of ASX-listed Electro Optic Systems, also expressed surprise at the plan, commenting on LinkedIn: "Hard to understand how this proposal for 300,000+ satellites makes any sense to anyone. I'm guessing that the Rwandan government won't be funding the capex."

Rwanda's per capita GDP equates to less than US$3 per day per person.

Both Space's Starlink and Amazon's Kuiper will cost some US$10 billion and have comparatively smaller constellations - albeit still the biggest networks on paper in the industry so far at 12,000 and 3,300 satellites respectively.

SATELLITE BLOCKER: Another intriguing perspective points to Rwanda's application as a potential technical and geopolitical issue. With such a massive network, the Rwandan submission could effectively block out all future constellations.

'Industry officials have long worried that sooner or later, national administrations would respond to the US Federal Communications Commission's willingness to license constellations so large as to limit other nations' access in certain orbits,' writes SpaceIntelReport editor Peter de Selding. Last year, China also informed the ITU of its own plans for a 13,000-satellite LEO constellation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[lcloo]

What is at stake?

A simple illustration of the huge difference.

The 2022 first generation Ukrainian UUV used to attack Crimea was using a satellite connection by fitting a 50 cm commercial Starlink phased array antenna.

But the Russians could use CIWIS and artillery because it was too visible.

The 3rd generation Ukrainian UUV of 2023 is practically totally submerged and nearly invisible from the surface. Should the mast contain a simple mobile phone, an internet connection could be established with a commercial Bluewalker satellite!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Conclusion, China's strategists don't want to end up in a quagmire in Taiwan like its northern neighbor, and are putting all the nation's weight in this ultimate space race.

Yes it is a space race for the Americans who do not want to see other nations overtake them, but for the Chinese it is just following a schedule that was planned more or less 20 years ago. They do not consider themselve in a race with the Americans.

In a race you would want to be ahead of your opponent, I don't see China doing that. Example the next Moon landing, China has set their own time table regardless of US action trying to get to the Moon again before China. China is not going to expedict their Moon landing mission well in advance of their original plan.

Have you ever come across any Chinese official statement that said they want to be ahead of US in their space missions, so as to win a race? Space race is a Cold War mentality, not a path taken by China.

 

[Kalec]

China tested YF-100N and gas generator for 200t methane engine today.

【130吨级可重复使用发动机二次起动试验取得圆满成功】西安航天动力试验技术研究所最新消息；5月12日10时55分，铜川大推力液体火箭发动机试验中心1201-1试验工位，可重复使用发动机二次起动试验取得圆满成功，这也是继考台试车圆满成功之后，1201-1工位首次承担型号研制任务，标志着铜川试验中心正式进入工程应用阶段。

【航天科技六院完成200吨液氧甲烷发生器点火试验】5月12日，航天科技六院在抱龙峪低温液体火箭发动机试验中心902-1台完成了200吨液氧甲烷发生器点火试验，是保证后续发生器稳定点火的重要试验。

 

[taxiya]

My reading of the slide. Only three characters are too blury to read and presented as XXX.

Interesting that is what the text says because the slide seems to have the rockets lined up at different points on the "timeline" (e.g. the three stage version lined up around late 2030s rather than 2033).

I think you should interpret the date by the red triangle rather than the rockets. This means 3 stage basic variant launch around 2030, not late 2030, nor 2033.

The interpretation of 2033 is by using the red triable against the red bar assuming the bar is ten years. It is contradictary to red marks of 2040 and 2050 that shared the same bar.

Around 2030 was always the date that was verbally expressed, even 2033 is still around 2030.

One other interesting question I have is why is the 2 stage variant meant to launch so much later than the 3 stage variant, given the 2 stage variant should technically be simpler than the 3 stage variant (after all a stage is deleted).

China's priority of CZ-9 is always moon which means 3 stage basic variant is the first one they want urgently.

No, 2 stage variant isn't easier than 3 stage variant nor saving any time. First launch of CZ-5 was the basic 2.5 stage variant, 1.5 stage variant CZ-5B was launched 4 years afterwards.

Deleting or adding a stage takes equal effort and risks due to the change of mass distribution and aero-dynamic stress and control algrorithm. Essentially they are treated as two different rockets.

I raise this, as I find the utility and importance of reusable regular LEO launches as more important for super heavies than LTO launches.

Not going to argue with you, but just to point out that CASC thinks differently. Moon, Mars and deep space launches are their first priorities. Non of them can afford sacrficing the payload capacity for reusability. We have seen all these objectives in powerpoint slides and research papers many times in the past decade, but not a single reusable regular LEO mission in the pipe line.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

China tested YF-100N and gas generator for 200t methane engine today.

Is there any indication what'll become of the YF-130 engine? Its intended rocket, the CZ-9(11), is no longer a thing but I can't imagine that the engine will just be mothballed.