China's Space Program Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It's interesting and surprising that no other company/country has been able to develop and operationalise a reusable rocket like space X, who has been doing so for almost a decade now. I wonder why it's the case. Would have thought that many companies/countries would have developed a similar rocket by now giving the advantages
SpaceX's rapid iterative approach and overall success is commendable for sure but to answer your question: 'oldspace' firms don't have the incentive to develop it because they launch only several times a year and are primarily in the business of launching extremely expensive government payloads. If the government is spending hundreds of millions or even billions for a satellite, launch cost is a rounding error. What's more important for them is improving orbit insertion accuracy and guaranteeing their customer's billion dollar assets' success.
They clearly thought about reusable rocket technology decades ago with demonstrators such as the DC-X. The Soviet's Energia also envisaged reusing the Buran and all four zenit boosters (the grey pads on them were shock absorbers, parachute system and landing gears!). Likely the
The global launch market has never been this active so it didn't make much sense until now to develop them.
SpaceX was in the right place at the right time to take advantage of this explosive growth in demand and took advantage of NASA's COTS and CRS programs to do fund the R&D (not to mention Merlins were heavily based on NASA's FASTRAC) and that effort paid off.
They clearly thought about reusable rocket technology decades ago with demonstrators such as the DC-X. The Soviet's Energia also envisaged reusing the Buran and all four zenit boosters (the grey pads on them were shock absorbers, parachute system and landing gears!). Likely the
The global launch market has never been this active so it didn't make much sense until now to develop them.
SpaceX was in the right place at the right time to take advantage of this explosive growth in demand and took advantage of NASA's COTS and CRS programs to do fund the R&D (not to mention Merlins were heavily based on NASA's FASTRAC) and that effort paid off.
One big issue with making rockets reusable, is what do you do with the engine production facility while it's idle to keep worker skills up to date. To keep the engine production facility operational you need to have a minimum amount of engines being produced all the time. Notice how SpaceX has stopped Merlin engine production two years ago to focus on Raptor and they still haven't needed to produce more Merlin engines despite them being the world's largest launch provider by far.
For countries with much more reduced launch requirements this would mean having your own engine factory would be uneconomic.
For countries with much more reduced launch requirements this would mean having your own engine factory would be uneconomic.
Yep and another notable but subtle cost is the manufacturer must now keep two separate supply lines open: one to refurbish previously used boosters, and one to build new ones and components. Keeping both lines open is expensive and running either one at reduced capacity (ie. if few boosters are produced because many get reused) is a huge expense.
This leads to one of the most crucial rules in reuse: it can only work at a consistently high flight rate (they're doing so with Starlinks and Musk claims they're at breakeven) because that is what is needed to overcome the fixed costs of running two supply lines such that they it doesn't dominate expenses. Otherwise, more efficient production without reuse makes more sense.
The costs of repairs tend to be dominated not by routine refurbishment but by unexpected, severe damage sustained during flights - something which becomes increasingly common upon multiple reflights.
Similarly, despite some expensive upgrades to support reuse, it is all but guaranteed that successive reuse attempts by even F9 B5 will quickly become prohibitively expensive due to such significant damage after multiple uses.
It remains to be seen if they can keep undercutting the market.
This leads to one of the most crucial rules in reuse: it can only work at a consistently high flight rate (they're doing so with Starlinks and Musk claims they're at breakeven) because that is what is needed to overcome the fixed costs of running two supply lines such that they it doesn't dominate expenses. Otherwise, more efficient production without reuse makes more sense.
The costs of repairs tend to be dominated not by routine refurbishment but by unexpected, severe damage sustained during flights - something which becomes increasingly common upon multiple reflights.
Similarly, despite some expensive upgrades to support reuse, it is all but guaranteed that successive reuse attempts by even F9 B5 will quickly become prohibitively expensive due to such significant damage after multiple uses.
It remains to be seen if they can keep undercutting the market.
by78
General
The service crane for the launchpad no.1 of the Hainan Commercial Spaceport has been installed atop the launch tower. The crane is used to hoist rockets onto the launchpad.
The for the launchpad No.1 of the Hainan Commercial Spaceport, seen here arriving at the site for installation. It's 3.9 meters in height, 10.5 meters long, and weighs 48 tons.
Last edited:
The Hangtianyuan Search and Rescue Service is not part of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) or the China Manned Space Agency (CMSA). It operates independently and is primarily responsible for search and rescue operations related to China's space program. While it collaborates with various Chinese government agencies and organizations, including the PLA and CMSA, Hangtianyuan Search and Rescue Service has its own distinct role and responsibilities in ensuring the safety of astronauts and space missions in China.
Thanks for clarifying.