You must know something. The literature I posted is only an internal discussion of CASC.
It was not confirmed in the official decision.
The New Long March Nine Rocket is only in the preliminary research stage. This pre research is also the Changjiu basic model for the next 10 years.
You treat this internal discussion as a resolution, especially an unchanging decision. Is it too hasty?
You need to be familiar with the Chinese military forum, and there have been many rumors in the past that various legendary projects have been discontinued (abandoned) midway.
In 2013, almost everyone on the CD told me that a large hydrogen oxygen engine must be a gas cycle. It cannot be a supplementary combustion cycle. Now?
I said, now the Long March 9th is a conceptual drawing, and the detailed design has not yet been developed. So a bunch of questions. The design of the second and third stages of the current Long March 9 rocket differs greatly from the publicly available rocket parameters, with a height of at least 10m that cannot match.
As for me, am I better than the designers at CASC? The design department of CASC only acknowledges that under the premise of reuse, large-diameter light rod rockets are more conducive to reuse, so it is the next research direction. There is no public statement that the plan has been determined, especially in terms of technical details. And now the details of the new Changjiu prove that this rocket is still in the early process of refining the overall basic parameters. This stage has not been completed and detailed design cannot proceed.
I said these obviously imperfect designs are not the final design of the Long March 9th. Is it wrong? Do you have any opinions?
Don't scare me with CASC. I added a group, and the group leader's ID is Long Lehao(退而不休的航天人 龙乐豪).
I mentioned more about the Long March 9 in that group, criticizing the configuration of the starship. Forward more different opinions on NSF.
You don't know, the suggestion from many people on the NSF forum in the United States is how to change the starship to the current state of the CZ9 (consumable rocket upper stage). The current starship design is basically of no help to US aerospace in the short term. It's hard to say if the future will be helpful. The biggest problem with starships is the integrated architecture of the two-stage rocket. The technical difficulty of leaving the cabin with super large loads is much greater than what ordinary enthusiasts think. This issue has never been addressed in domestic literature on aerospace starships.
