China's Space Program Thread II

stoa1984

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.


Bro, this only confirms my previous analysis: China following closely the development of its U.S. rival.

Since the CZ-9 keeps morphing from the all solid propellant expendable SLV, to the expendable Kerolox SLV, to the VTVL reusable kerolox SLV to the reusable METHOLOX VTVL SLV aka Starship...

In this case, YF-130 is no longer an option for the Starship-class CZ-9!

Indeed, a KEROLOX engine would be useless on the Moon and Mars, where hydrocarbons can't be found.

30 clustered Chinese methoLox 200t-thrust Raptor engines will power the 10m core Chinese Starship.

a8b02c73af24ff99e27afbccfd3806e2295a4d05.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The first stage does not need to go to Mars or the Moon. And that is where you will use LOX/Kerosene. Using the same base engine on both stages, like done in Falcon 9, is a way to cut on development and manufacturing costs. Since SpaceX decided to use multiple Raptor engine sizes on Starship that became moot.

Thus far SpaceX has NOT proven they can produce the Raptor 2 reliably enough to make the Booster rocket on Starship work. The Soviets tried to get rockets with dozens of engines to work on the N1 and they failed. You would think modern automated production methods would have made the engines more reliable. But thus far it hasn't happened.

While I do not dismiss SpaceX's concept for the vehicle, it does make sense and I hope they get it to work, a design with less engines would be more reliable.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
My reading of the slide. Only three characters are too blury to read and presented as XXX.View attachment 112489

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.

I suppose that makes more sense, though I must say I personally think this is one of the worst graphs I've ever seen in terms of conveying information, at any rate it makes me wonder what the purpose of the red bar is.


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.

Yes, the fact that it will take time and effort for a different/reduced stage variant to be flown is understandable, it's more the projected time taken which I'm surprised/impressed by.


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.

I suppose time will tell; I've always felt that the inability to put unitary big mass payloads into LEO reliably and regularly would present a major strategic blindspot and vulnerability if left too far behind, but on the other hand I suppose for the lunar and mars side of things, there is a real possibility that a race for moon and mars resouces could be a thing and if one doesn't have a sufficiently minimally sized foothold/presence there then it could present an even bigger strategic blindspot.

From that perspective, perhaps pursing a moon/mars presence is not unwise.

(As you can tell, I am thinking more in terms of strategic/military/resourcing risks rather than science per se.)
 

by78

General
That was fast. The new 700-ton engine test bench has just successfully completed its first engine test run. The engine used for the test run was the YF-100N (130-ton reusable LOX/Kerosene engine). The test bench has now been officially commissioned.

52844449701_31dbfdd56e_o.jpg
52844845330_b9a23ffc9c_o.jpg

YF-100N reusable engine intended for Long March 10 has just successfully completed another test run, which included two engine starts during the test.

52893380246_9a299cfd17_b.jpg
52893772200_7959e3a039_o.jpg
52893380241_70104f4d18_h.jpg
 

stoa1984

Junior Member
Registered Member
The first stage does not need to go to Mars or the Moon. And that is where you will use LOX/Kerosene.
First stages will also depart from the Moon and Mars.




5.4.1. Plan B for outer space

Plan B for outer space has been unlocked as a by-product of the space race for Rare Earth Elements mineral in outer space.

Miyake events

26 October 2022

In 2012, Miyake et al. discovered in Japanese cedar tree-rings a sudden single-year jump in radiocarbon concentration around 774 CE. This was followed shortly by the discovery of another spike in tree-rings from 993 CE, and further such spikes have been found in 660 BCE, 5259 BCE, 5410 BCE and 7176 BCE, for a total of six well-studied and accepted radiocarbon spikes.

The sharp rise in radiation, with a simultaneous global onset, indicates that Miyake events are of astrophysical origin, for which a variety of explanations have been offered (thoroughly reviewed in [33]). Dying stars and their remnants are known to produce extremely intense bursts of radiation, and are prima facie reasonable astrophysical sources. For instance, a sharp burst of radiation could have been delivered by a Galactic gamma-ray burst or nearby supernova, though astronomical evidence of these is so far lacking.

The wide consensus of the literature is that these events have a solar origin, beginning with Melott & Thomas; Usoskin et al. For example, the events could represent a solar magnetic collapse, a very brief grand solar minimum, with the reduced heliospheric shielding exposing the Earth to an increase in Galactic cosmic rays.

The solar proton event of 1956 produced an estimated 3.04×106 atoms/cm−23.04×106 atoms/cm−2 of 14C; depending on assumptions about its flare class and spectral hardness, the 774 CE event could correspond to an X-ray flare as bright as X1800, nearly two orders of magnitude larger than any previously observed.

If a Miyake event were to occur today, the sudden and dramatic rise in cosmic radiation could be devastating to the biosphere and technological society. It is therefore concerning that we have little understanding of how to predict their occurrence or effects. A solar proton event orders of magnitude more powerful than any previously observed could cause an ‘internet apocalypse’ of prolonged outages by damaging submarine cables and satellites. The direct effects of energetic particles could even harm the health of passengers in high-altitude aircraft. It is also likely that the 774 CE event would have caused a approximately 8.5% depletion in global ozone coverage, with a significant but not catastrophic effect on weather. The origin and physics of these radiocarbon spikes are therefore important not just for astronomers and archaeologists, but for risk planning and mitigation in general society.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Conclusion, from these statistics, one might expect that such strong events occur once per tens of millennia, while weaker events may occur once per millennium or even century. The event of 774 did not cause catastrophic consequences for life on Earth, but had it happened in modern times, it might have produced game ending damages to modern technology, particularly to communication and space-borne military satellite systems.

Therefore, time is running out for the humankind, before the world is totally wiped out by the next Miyake event.

New World 2.0

Basically, to survive both the coming and inevitable Climate Apocalypse and Miyake event, the idea is to create a totally new World, counterpart of the Old World. Albeit deprived of any human being.

The American continent has surpassed the Eurasian one, 500 years after the start of its colonization by the European powers.

This time, space is the New World. The Solar System, where humans can never expand due to the Earth's Radiation Belts, solar wind, deep space radiations and lack of gravity mostly.

0c991fa4d814e3de6195d11dc7d420545a7ea426.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A new world populated therefore only by artificial synthetic and robotic subjects, each fine-tuned for their new ecosystem, comprising specific gravitational environment of their own planets, residual radiation level and atmospheric conditions.

As if additional smoking guns were needed, this same sentence quoted from Arthur C. Clarke was of course cited by Elon Musk himself, in a short 1 minute 42 seconds twitter video, and extracted from an original 12 minutes 5 seconds long 1964 BBC interview.

scr.png

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The question is how many subjects are needed to maintain a minimum of administrative, military, economic, industrial and scientific production in order to not collapse.

In the hypothesis of a demographic threshold (DT) of about 250 millions subjects, that is the demographic level of the U.S. in 1989, when the nation was about to become the only hyperpower 2 years later, thus able to defeat all the other powers in a coalition, the question is it is feasible?

How long would it take to populate the Solar System with 250 millions artificial synthetic and robotic subjects, and how many flights?

cfc3c05df5ce863a8b25506e25be2e6760ffae3b.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the best scenario, as presented in the roadmap of China's manned space launcher 2017-2045, we could expect fully reusable up to 100 times, 99.5% reliable, 12 hours between each flight, vertical take off, horizontal landing space transportation systems.

The countdown

With 100 cybernetic passengers per rocket flights, 2 flights a day, 100 total flights per rocket before being discarded, and a fleet of 50 Chinese rockets (as in 2021), that is 50 expendable rockets all to be replaced by reusable ones in the future by 2030:

Per rocket: 100 flights/50 days => 10'000 passengers/50 days
Per fleet of 50 rockets: 500'000 passenger / years

This means a superpower like China by converting all its industrial capacity to produce 50 reusable VTVL rockets would need 500 years to transfer the hypothesized demographic threshold (DT) of about 250 millions subjects, and only to LEO!

And this is only the first and shortest trip. More fleet would be required to shuttle the robotic colonizers from the LEO Space Station to the Lunar Orbit's Station, then a third dedicated fleet would ferry the passengers to the lunar surface. The colonization of Mars would even increase this number!

In 100 years, only 50 millions passengers could be sent to LEO, or equivalent of the U.S. demography in the year 1852!

Now we see clearly why all the industrial capacity of the world is required in this Plan-B.

This can be declined as following:

• China: 50 rockets a year
• US (NASA): 50 rockets a year
• India (ISRO): 50 rockets a year
• Europes (EU ESA + Russia Roscosmos): <50 rockets a year
• North East Asia (DPRK NADA + ROK KARI + Japan JAXA): <50 rockets a year
• ASEAN (Myanmar MSA + Thailand GISTDA + Indonesia LAPAN): <50 rockets a year
• West Asia (Iran ISA + Turkey TUA + UAE + Pakistan): <50 rockets a year
• South America (Brazil AEB + Argentina CONAE): <50 rockets a year

By increasing the space traffic to 500 rockets each year, all nations included, it would still require 50 years to send the DT 255 millions passengers to LEO!

But we can't produce that amount of rockets due to the weakness of the lesser powers.

Finally to reach the lunar orbit station an then the lunar surface, the fleet needs to be more than 3 times larger!

Cargo fleet that would carry the construction elements and machinery needed to build the first generation ground facilities on the Moon, the Gigawatt-class microwave solar power generator in lunar orbit necessary to power the first ground infrastructures, and in-orbit refuellers for the rockets, would even increase this number.


9dc135517eef1aa2a7a28e8879bfd28a2ee819fd.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Expect the completion clock ▄▄ set to 2080 AD.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
No. The Starship booster with the 33 engines is definitively not supposed to go to the Moon or Mars. As for colonization of space, it is highly unlikely until the technology to do this is developed and there are economic reasons to move there. There are more hospitable places on Earth which are mostly unpopulated. At least you can breathe on the South Pole. Yet how many people live there.
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
First stages will also depart from the Moon and Mars.




5.4.1. Plan B for outer space

Plan B for outer space has been unlocked as a by-product of the space race for Rare Earth Elements mineral in outer space.

Miyake events



Conclusion, from these statistics, one might expect that such strong events occur once per tens of millennia, while weaker events may occur once per millennium or even century. The event of 774 did not cause catastrophic consequences for life on Earth, but had it happened in modern times, it might have produced game ending damages to modern technology, particularly to communication and space-borne military satellite systems.

Therefore, time is running out for the humankind, before the world is totally wiped out by the next Miyake event.

New World 2.0

Basically, to survive both the coming and inevitable Climate Apocalypse and Miyake event, the idea is to create a totally new World, counterpart of the Old World. Albeit deprived of any human being.

The American continent has surpassed the Eurasian one, 500 years after the start of its colonization by the European powers.

This time, space is the New World. The Solar System, where humans can never expand due to the Earth's Radiation Belts, solar wind, deep space radiations and lack of gravity mostly.

0c991fa4d814e3de6195d11dc7d420545a7ea426.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A new world populated therefore only by artificial synthetic and robotic subjects, each fine-tuned for their new ecosystem, comprising specific gravitational environment of their own planets, residual radiation level and atmospheric conditions.

As if additional smoking guns were needed, this same sentence quoted from Arthur C. Clarke was of course cited by Elon Musk himself, in a short 1 minute 42 seconds twitter video, and extracted from an original 12 minutes 5 seconds long 1964 BBC interview.

scr.png

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The question is how many subjects are needed to maintain a minimum of administrative, military, economic, industrial and scientific production in order to not collapse.

In the hypothesis of a demographic threshold (DT) of about 250 millions subjects, that is the demographic level of the U.S. in 1989, when the nation was about to become the only hyperpower 2 years later, thus able to defeat all the other powers in a coalition, the question is it is feasible?

How long would it take to populate the Solar System with 250 millions artificial synthetic and robotic subjects, and how many flights?

cfc3c05df5ce863a8b25506e25be2e6760ffae3b.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the best scenario, as presented in the roadmap of China's manned space launcher 2017-2045, we could expect fully reusable up to 100 times, 99.5% reliable, 12 hours between each flight, vertical take off, horizontal landing space transportation systems.

The countdown

With 100 cybernetic passengers per rocket flights, 2 flights a day, 100 total flights per rocket before being discarded, and a fleet of 50 Chinese rockets (as in 2021), that is 50 expendable rockets all to be replaced by reusable ones in the future by 2030:

Per rocket: 100 flights/50 days => 10'000 passengers/50 days
Per fleet of 50 rockets: 500'000 passenger / years

This means a superpower like China by converting all its industrial capacity to produce 50 reusable VTVL rockets would need 500 years to transfer the hypothesized demographic threshold (DT) of about 250 millions subjects, and only to LEO!

And this is only the first and shortest trip. More fleet would be required to shuttle the robotic colonizers from the LEO Space Station to the Lunar Orbit's Station, then a third dedicated fleet would ferry the passengers to the lunar surface. The colonization of Mars would even increase this number!

In 100 years, only 50 millions passengers could be sent to LEO, or equivalent of the U.S. demography in the year 1852!

Now we see clearly why all the industrial capacity of the world is required in this Plan-B.

This can be declined as following:

• China: 50 rockets a year
• US (NASA): 50 rockets a year
• India (ISRO): 50 rockets a year
• Europes (EU ESA + Russia Roscosmos): <50 rockets a year
• North East Asia (DPRK NADA + ROK KARI + Japan JAXA): <50 rockets a year
• ASEAN (Myanmar MSA + Thailand GISTDA + Indonesia LAPAN): <50 rockets a year
• West Asia (Iran ISA + Turkey TUA + UAE + Pakistan): <50 rockets a year
• South America (Brazil AEB + Argentina CONAE): <50 rockets a year

By increasing the space traffic to 500 rockets each year, all nations included, it would still require 50 years to send the DT 255 millions passengers to LEO!

But we can't produce that amount of rockets due to the weakness of the lesser powers.

Finally to reach the lunar orbit station an then the lunar surface, the fleet needs to be more than 3 times larger!

Cargo fleet that would carry the construction elements and machinery needed to build the first generation ground facilities on the Moon, the Gigawatt-class microwave solar power generator in lunar orbit necessary to power the first ground infrastructures, and in-orbit refuellers for the rockets, would even increase this number.


9dc135517eef1aa2a7a28e8879bfd28a2ee819fd.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Expect the completion clock ▄▄ set to 2080 AD.
Does this actually belong in a Chinese space flight thread? Parts of it borders on SciFi talk.

Also if you're posting an article from somewhere, it'll be better to just post the link rather than copy pasting the whole page.
 
Top