You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
China's Space Program Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It is just that the newer rockets all seem to be getting launched from facilities at Hainan island. My guess is those facilities aren't enough to keep up the necessary launch rate. Which is why I said they should make Long March 7 launch facilities inland as well. Keeping all the facilities at Hainan island close to the sea might prove an issue in case of conflict.
Article about 801 institute of CASC.
This part interests me.
2014年5月，801所启动新一代多用途载人飞船推进系统项目论证工作，针对未来返回舱可重复使用的考虑，大胆提出了HAN基无毒单组元返回舱推进系统技术方案。其中，400牛发动机因推力大，成为突出的关键技术，同期国际上尚在研究的同类发动机最大推力也不超过200牛，所以面临着研制难度大、技术新、周期短。
The new crew capsule uses 400N HAN based engine. It was (and probably still is) the largest HAN based engine of the world in 2014.
Another article I read indicates that HAN based egine is good for upper stage strategic missile and warhead's RCS engines.
This part interests me.
2014年5月，801所启动新一代多用途载人飞船推进系统项目论证工作，针对未来返回舱可重复使用的考虑，大胆提出了HAN基无毒单组元返回舱推进系统技术方案。其中，400牛发动机因推力大，成为突出的关键技术，同期国际上尚在研究的同类发动机最大推力也不超过200牛，所以面临着研制难度大、技术新、周期短。
The new crew capsule uses 400N HAN based engine. It was (and probably still is) the largest HAN based engine of the world in 2014.
Another article I read indicates that HAN based egine is good for upper stage strategic missile and warhead's RCS engines.
Not true, those facilities are dedicated to CZ-7 and 8, nothing else. How could they be not enough when they are only used a few times a year?It is just that the newer rockets all seem to be getting launched from facilities at Hainan island. My guess is those facilities aren't enough to keep up the necessary launch rate. Which is why I said they should make Long March 7 launch facilities inland as well. Keeping all the facilities at Hainan island close to the sea might prove an issue in case of conflict.
In-land launching capability is a design requirement for security reasons, but it has nothing to do with the seemingly "low" usage of new rockets.
The acutal reason is that CZ-7 and 8 are "too" capable for most of the jobs in their market sectors.
- CZ-7 is ONLY meant for cargo transport to the space station, nothing else, it is only used 3 times every 2 years. It can throw 14t to LEO, how many of that 14t every year you need to LEO?
- CZ-7A is for GTO from 6.8t to 8t. It is meant to replace CZ-3B (5.5). Since March 2021, 7A was launched 5 times, 3B was 18 times. Considering the payload class, it is not "less" used. After all, why would you want to pay a much higher price to waste tonnes of capacity?
- CZ-8's SSO capacity is 5.5t, CZ-4C's capacity is 3t. If there is enough demand for SSO payload in the range of 3-5.5t why isn't CZ-8 used? Afterall CZ-4C just can't do the job no matter how cheap it is.
To summary, China does not give undeserved weight to the "environmental friendly" fever because for China safe handling of "bad" rocket is like good surgen handing the scapple, the chance of contamination accident is far less than East Palestine derailment. The consideratioin of usage is mostly based on cost if not only of it.
Just got a thought when reading this article.Article about 801 institute of CASC.
This part interests me.
2014年5月，801所启动新一代多用途载人飞船推进系统项目论证工作，针对未来返回舱可重复使用的考虑，大胆提出了HAN基无毒单组元返回舱推进系统技术方案。其中，400牛发动机因推力大，成为突出的关键技术，同期国际上尚在研究的同类发动机最大推力也不超过200牛，所以面临着研制难度大、技术新、周期短。
The new crew capsule uses 400N HAN based engine. It was (and probably still is) the largest HAN based engine of the world in 2014.
Another article I read indicates that HAN based egine is good for upper stage strategic missile and warhead's RCS engines.
There is the "八年九机" (8 year 9 engines) program, in it there is a 大推力高压补燃循环常规发动机 (High thrust staged combustion XX engine). So far people would take 常规 (lit. conventional) as hypergolic, but 常规 in Chinese is more to mean the opposite of Cryogenic (low temperature), it simply means propellent that does need refrigeration. Most HAN based fuel are liquid above at least -10 degrees C. So what if this engine is actually HAN based or other type similar to HAN?
Regarding the triple core Falcon heavy setup that's so popular in China, I wonder if it's a mistake. Elon/SpaceX has stated that development of the Falcon heavy was much harder then just slapping 3 boosters together, the central core has to be reinforced and the triple core with all it's engines are a pain to coordinate, hence the 5 year developmental time. And landing the central core is still insanely difficult, which diminishes the cost savings of reuse. He has stated that if given a chance to go back in time and start over again, he would have just went with a bigger Falcon 9/mini-Starship instead of the triple core design, would have been faster and easier.
Landspace seems to have gotten this memo, they were going for a triple core ZQ-2 previously, but now their plans seem to have changed and there doesn't seem to a triple core rocket in their development plans, with them jumping off the ZQ-3 into a Starship like rocket in the late 2020s.
Landspace seems to have gotten this memo, they were going for a triple core ZQ-2 previously, but now their plans seem to have changed and there doesn't seem to a triple core rocket in their development plans, with them jumping off the ZQ-3 into a Starship like rocket in the late 2020s.
The triple core rocket can be transported by road to the launch site. You can put each booster on a truck's trailer. A large diameter rocket would have to be transported by barge to the launch site. Which means they would have had to build new rocket factories and new rocket test facilities. You could also build the factory at the launch site. If you don't mind losing the factory if the rocket crashes back onto the launch site upon takeoff. And you think that would be cheaper than reinforcing the booster design and running some more tests like Elon is claiming? I doubt it.
When the Russians decided to make a launch site in the Far East (Vostochny) for Angara the people at Khrunichev ended up moving the factory from Moscow all the way to Omsk. It turns out you had to carry the rocket through railway tunnels that the rocket couldn't pass through, so you couldn't continue using the original factory with the new launch site. The need to move the rockets by rail is also why Angara uses the modular architecture with a center core and four boosters to begin with. So it has taken the Russians the better part of a decade to build the new factory and the new launch site. And in the meantime you don't launch anything. The Russian government can piss away billions doing this. But initially SpaceX did not have that kind of money. Remember that SpaceX used existing factory buildings, existing test sites, existing launch sites, which they bought on the cheap, and modified them to suit their needs to save money. I think Elon said they had $40 million USD to get Falcon 1 working and just barely made it.
This is just like Elon claiming that had he known it he would have just started with the Merlin engine having regenerative nozzle instead of ablative. Or starting it with higher power to begin with. This is just bullshit. He did not have enough capital to do that until he got the $100 million USD money from NASA to make Falcon 9. Which he only got to begin with because of a proven track record with a successful launch of Falcon 1 on Flight 4.
When the Russians decided to make a launch site in the Far East (Vostochny) for Angara the people at Khrunichev ended up moving the factory from Moscow all the way to Omsk. It turns out you had to carry the rocket through railway tunnels that the rocket couldn't pass through, so you couldn't continue using the original factory with the new launch site. The need to move the rockets by rail is also why Angara uses the modular architecture with a center core and four boosters to begin with. So it has taken the Russians the better part of a decade to build the new factory and the new launch site. And in the meantime you don't launch anything. The Russian government can piss away billions doing this. But initially SpaceX did not have that kind of money. Remember that SpaceX used existing factory buildings, existing test sites, existing launch sites, which they bought on the cheap, and modified them to suit their needs to save money. I think Elon said they had $40 million USD to get Falcon 1 working and just barely made it.
This is just like Elon claiming that had he known it he would have just started with the Merlin engine having regenerative nozzle instead of ablative. Or starting it with higher power to begin with. This is just bullshit. He did not have enough capital to do that until he got the $100 million USD money from NASA to make Falcon 9. Which he only got to begin with because of a proven track record with a successful launch of Falcon 1 on Flight 4.
Last edited:
Alot of the new rocket designs are too big to transport inland and most commercial launch services are gonna to be done via the Wenchang launch center anyway. Being able to launch from inland launch sites isn't a big deal, especially with more coastal launch sites coming online over the next decade. And transport via water is always more efficientThe triple core rocket can be transported by road to the launch site.
You can always make better decisions with hindsight, or from the mistakes and experience of others. And this time Chinese companies have the advantage of SpaceX who tried it and decided that it wasn't worth the time or effort and stated that they would have just made a bigger Falcon 9/mini-Starship if they could go back in time and do it again.This is just like Elon claiming that had he known it he would have just started with the Merlin engine having regenerative nozzle instead of ablative. Or starting it with higher power to begin with. This is just bullshit. He did not have enough capital to do that until he got the $100 million USD money from NASA to make Falcon 9. Which he only got to begin with because of a proven track record with a successful launch of Falcon 1 on Flight 4.
The results speak for themselves. It was meant to make development easier and faster, by slapping together already existing rockets boosters, instead it took 5 years, when SpaceX has a famously fast development time. To this day they haven't recovered the central booster, which really impacts the cost savings of reuse. Chinese companies going for the same design are gonna to face the same problem. The end-game is some sort of Starship like rocket anyway and scaling your single core rocket up is a better way to get there rather then a triple core design.
Last edited: