China's Space Program Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
How would the payload bay door open? Ventral side?A separation test of a two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane design. The test was carried out inside the JF-12 hypersonic tunnel.
The part in red circle is engine and fuel tank. The nose part must be the payload bay. I suppose that the payload bay opens to the sides by the blue line. It is highly unlikely to impossible to open the bay from the ventral side because it takes the shock and heat during reentry, any structure of door will weaken the heat shield.
On the open we have only seen models of two stage, horizontal take off and landing, orbital launcher from CASIC, namely Tengyun program. So the over simplified anwer is yes.
But I don't think the question and answer really matter to reality, because we have seen a presentation of China's road map to full reusability. In the final phase, the second stage is a liftbody rocket which is a CASC program which has been successfully tested in 2022. That presentation is essentially combining effort of both CASC and CASIC.
So once again we are back to the basics of how China's state program works. CASC and CASIC have many parallel programs, some are competing concepts, some are complimenting works. They are not exclusively competing like in the west or Russia. One good example is the ICBM work were shared or transferred between CASC and CASIC, neither of them owns a program.
Most likely we're dealing with the Tengyun project. However, it's too early to say on whether this is the finalized design or not. I'm more excited about this project than their Moon rocket since I have a soft spot for space "planes" like the STS / Buran.
I would imagine it'd be similar to NASA's STS. The cargo doors would likely be on the top side.
German Saenger II TSTO spaceplane design from the 1980s.
The problem with these sorts of programs is that they are supremely expensive, and you get a minute payload. So they usually go nowhere.
Studies from the 1960s by Philip Bono from Douglas also indicate that recovering the launch vehicle with winged surfaces imposes a 30% weight penalty, vs 20% weight penalty with a vertically landing rocket like the Falcon 9.
The problem with these sorts of programs is that they are supremely expensive, and you get a minute payload. So they usually go nowhere.
Studies from the 1960s by Philip Bono from Douglas also indicate that recovering the launch vehicle with winged surfaces imposes a 30% weight penalty, vs 20% weight penalty with a vertically landing rocket like the Falcon 9.
Last edited:
The purpose of horizontal TSTO(in Chinese mind at least) is not the payload to take-off ratio. I have seen Chinese paper ackownledging its lower ratio than vertical rocket. The German and many other failed program can not be used as argument against China's pursuing the path. One advantage of this approach is that it can be launched at any moment like an airplane, something that vertical launched rocket can never do. This advantage can turn such launcher an orbital bomber (two stages) or hypersonic intercontinental bomber (only 1st stage).
BTW, according to the book I refered to about HGV, China has been studying orbital bombing. For it to work, a horizontal TSTO is a must have.
BTW, according to the book I refered to about HGV, China has been studying orbital bombing. For it to work, a horizontal TSTO is a must have.
Where did you reference the book? Sounds like an interesting read.