China's Space Program Thread II

[tphuang]

I think the viability of sending things like mars rover or moon landing projects by commercial launch companies is a chicken and egg problem; if the commercial launch companies prove to be competent and viable, then I think there could be more projects and more payloads to be launched.


I don't want to completely throw the thread into disarray by talking about massively large scale annual launch weights to orbit, but do I think the scale of rocket launches/space access has yet to be determined.
What I will say is it may be useful to consider whether right now we are in the 1920s equivalent for fixed wing flight, and in a few decades we could rapidly progress to heavier, more frequent, and more normalized launches, whether it's for LEO, GEO, LTO or beyond.


Edit, okay lol nvm



What if you want to put up 150t LEO satellites, 1 satellite per launch, and your goal is to have 50,000+ LEO satellites of 150t weight each.



What if you want to put up 150t satellites into LEO, or 10m diameter mirrors/sensors?

if market works, then as the technology develops and cost comes down, commercial opportunities will become available

The current demand for commercial launches is just the LEO Internet satellites and the reason for that is concern over Starlinks taking over some much of LEO orbit that there isn't space left for any other constellations.

Any further commercial application will probably take longer time to happen

although based on the pace at which Chinese EV companies caught up and now surpassed Tesla in technology, I'd be very surprised if Chinese private space launchers can't catch up to SpaceX in technology for applications that have commercial value

 

[Blitzo]

You can place larger objects in orbit by assembling them from smaller components in orbit.

When Columbus went to the Americas he didn't do it with just one ship either.

You're not wrong, arranging larger satellites or structures I expect will absolutely be a thing.

I could foresee multiple 150t payloads in LEO eventually forming 1000t or 10,000s t, or even 100,000s t large stations (for both civil/explorative and military use) for example.

But I also think it is important to recognize that simply dismissing the idea of "hundreds of 150t to LEO launches a day" may be strategically dangerous.

if market works, then as the technology develops and cost comes down, commercial opportunities will become available

The current demand for commercial launches is just the LEO Internet satellites and the reason for that is concern over Starlinks taking over some much of LEO orbit that there isn't space left for any other constellations.

Any further commercial application will probably take longer time to happen

although based on the pace at which Chinese EV companies caught up and now surpassed Tesla in technology, I'd be very surprised if Chinese private space launchers can't catch up to SpaceX in technology for applications that have commercial value

Yes, the pace of overall Chinese space launch in the short to medium term future is absolutely something to track carefully, and both commercial and state launch companies I suspect are reorganizing themselves a little to move faster to avoid too much of a gap between SpaceX's potential and themselves.


My overall thrust is that I think we are at a stage of space launch/exploration technology now, that there needs to be some serious consideration of "DAE annually launch tens of millions of tons of payload into LEO equivalent in a few decades" needs to be at least pondered by governments. Because if you get your pants caught down on this and reality ends up approaching even a fraction of such a prospect... well let's just say 24/7 global simultaneous realtime AMTI, sub-meter grade SAR and GMTI would be well within reach, let alone other strategic applications.

 

[gelgoog]

You're not wrong, arranging larger satellites or structures I expect will absolutely be a thing.
I could foresee multiple 150t payloads in LEO eventually forming 1000t or 10,000s t, or even 100,000s t large stations (for both civil/explorative and military use) for example.
But I also think it is important to recognize that simply dismissing the idea of "hundreds of 150t to LEO launches a day" may be strategically dangerous.

Larger launchers might happen eventually. But the thing is they should happen when there is a need for them. Not this build them and they will come mindset. They should have been trying to increase reusability and reduce turn around time for rockets instead of going for the super heavies.

If you look at the size of the average satellite it isn't that big. If the demand for large satellites was that big why hasn't SpaceX even bothered making a larger payload fairing for Falcon Heavy? Other rockets with lesser performance have larger fairings available.

 

[Blitzo]

Larger launchers might happen eventually. But the thing is they should happen when there is a need for them. Not this build them and they will come mindset. They should have been trying to increase reusability and reduce turn around time for rockets instead of going for the super heavies.

If you look at the size of the average satellite it isn't that big. If the demand for large satellites was that big why hasn't SpaceX even bothered making a larger payload fairing for Falcon Heavy? Other rockets with lesser performance have larger fairings available.

My view is that the launchers are one of the major bottlenecks to proper "letss gooo boysss" in the strategic and economic exploitation of space, but not the only bottleneck.
Obviously, having launchers be available will not immediately enable large scale payloads to be developed and launched immediately -- and the pace with which SpaceX has worked is relatively quick compared to traditional space launch companies, in turn thus placing a rate limiting step for the payload/satellite developers.


However, having the space launchers themselves be available is ultimately still one major barrier to be cleared, and you are much better off having that capacity be available to wait for the payloads to catch up, rather than have neither.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

What Musk is doing is dangerous and it's far too risky for China to just dismiss it. Nothing may come of Starship, but the risk that it turns out that they will indeed come if it's built is too great for China not to develop a comparable capability ASAP. The downside is that China is out tens of billions of dollars over the development of CZ-9... big deal. That's chump change to China and money will spent to mitigate that risk.

If the upside materializes, then China is very well positioned to capitalize on it.

 

[kentchang]

Larger launchers might happen eventually. But the thing is they should happen when there is a need for them. Not this build them and they will come mindset. They should have been trying to increase reusability and reduce turn around time for rockets instead of going for the super heavies.

If you look at the size of the average satellite it isn't that big. If the demand for large satellites was that big why hasn't SpaceX even bothered making a larger payload fairing for Falcon Heavy? Other rockets with lesser performance have larger fairings available.

When it comes to infrastructure, China thinks much bigger than the US. How about big and beautiful Orbital Solar Power Stations in the 2030/40's. Perfect timing for reusable CZ-9s.

 

[tacoburger]

Actual scientist and rocket engineers were laughing at SpaceX and their cost figures 10 years ago too. Starlink wouldn't be possible without reusable rockets lowering costs so much. Trying to predict the future is a fool's errand, we have no idea what kind of future payloads will be needed in the future, the best that China can do is just improve their technology as much as possible. For all we know, one day a 10km comet will be on a direct collision course with earth and then suddenly putting millions of tons into deep space becomes a life or death issue for the entire planet.

 

[gelgoog]

If you look at historic launchers, after the Apollo Program wound down, the US basically stopped making Saturn V rockets. The Soviets also cancelled the N-1. After the Soviet Union ended the Energia stopped being manufactured. The US Shuttle is gone.
The reasons were always the same. Not enough payloads for a hugely expensive rocket.

Making rockets reusable and launching them more often improves economics. But the amount of large payloads viable to launch aren't that many.

 

[Blitzo]

If you look at historic launchers, after the Apollo Program wound down, the US basically stopped making Saturn V rockets. The Soviets also cancelled the N-1. After the Soviet Union ended the Energia stopped being manufactured. The US Shuttle is gone.
The reasons were always the same. Not enough payloads for a hugely expensive rocket.

Making rockets reusable and launching them more often improves economics. But the amount of large payloads viable to launch aren't that many.

Sounds like a great reason to assume that there will be no necessity for high rate super heavy launchers and thus not prioritize their development.

 

[AndrewS]

You're not wrong, arranging larger satellites or structures I expect will absolutely be a thing.

I could foresee multiple 150t payloads in LEO eventually forming 1000t or 10,000s t, or even 100,000s t large stations (for both civil/explorative and military use) for example.

But I also think it is important to recognize that simply dismissing the idea of "hundreds of 150t to LEO launches a day" may be strategically dangerous.

If you run the numbers, just [200 launches per day] x [150t] = [11 Million tonnes of payload]

Let's say we have mega space stations at 100,000t
Or call it the equivalent of an existing naval aircraft carrier at 100,000t

That would mean the equivalent of over 100 launched per year.

---

What would they be doing with all this payload?

1. There's nothing in the emptiness of LEO to GEO space to justify all these space stations, unless there is an overt militarisation with huge Space Navies. Note the existing US Navy only comes to 5 million tonnes in total. And what country can afford to launch even 1 aircraft carrier (100,000t) per year?

EDIT
And the payload requirement for missiles is orders of magnitude lower. This has huge implications for intercontinental conventional strike across both directions of the Pacific. Let's say launch costs drop to $100/kg, which should be easily feasible for a truly reusable Falcon-9 sized rocket or Starship-sized one. For a 1000kg re-entry vehicle with warhead, the launch cost is just $100K. Even if you wanted to launch 10,000 such warheads per month, that is equivalent to launch capacity of 0.12 Million tonnes per year.

Thinking more strategically, you would want more dispersed and smaller launch rockets in such a military arms race. Ergo, a smaller Falcon-9 sized rocket versus Starship-size.

And with China now able to inflict significant damage on the US Homeland, the US appetite for declaring war on China will disappear, particularly since both sides will not be able to distinguish between conventional and nuclear strikes. China's strategic objectives do not require a war with the US.


2. Express freight services via space won't be significant as you only save a few hours over the existing air freight services, but the cost will be far higher.

3. A similar calculation applies to passenger transport services, but space rockets will also be significantly more dangerous and more uncomfortable than an airliner.

4. Only when there is a requirement for a Mars base (or a Moon base?), does a Starship sized rocket become more cost-efficient than a Falcon-9 sized rocket. I think this will eventually happen, but there are 2 considerations:

a) A base will take some time to build, because it will be very expensive and likely a huge money sink for years and years.
b) The higher launch costs of a Falcon-9 sized rocket versus a Starship-sized one shouldn't be too bad. Maybe 30%?

So in a worse case scenario, let's assume rockets to Mars will take at least 10 years before they are commonplace.

China would have lower overall launch costs for the first 10 years. Then you would have a period with higher launch costs, but this can be swallowed for a few years until the rocket design is scaled up. It might even end up that China comes up with a larger Starship-sized rocket exactly when it is most cost effective, in say 10-15 years time.

Eventually, we would end up in a situation similar to today's commercial airliner market.

Yes, the pace of overall Chinese space launch in the short to medium term future is absolutely something to track carefully, and both commercial and state launch companies I suspect are reorganizing themselves a little to move faster to avoid too much of a gap between SpaceX's potential and themselves.


My overall thrust is that I think we are at a stage of space launch/exploration technology now, that there needs to be some serious consideration of "DAE annually launch tens of millions of tons of payload into LEO equivalent in a few decades" needs to be at least pondered by governments. Because if you get your pants caught down on this and reality ends up approaching even a fraction of such a prospect... well let's just say 24/7 global simultaneous realtime AMTI, sub-meter grade SAR and GMTI would be well within reach, let alone other strategic applications.

"24/7 global simultaneous realtime AMTI, sub-meter grade SAR and GMTI would be well within reach, let alone other strategic applications."

I'd say this is feasible with a constellation <10000 satellites in LEO. You would only need 10000 tonnes in total, rather than millions of tonnes.

But the main problem is the total number of satellites that can fit into LEO, which might only be 50K.
With this sort of limit, a Falcon 9 sized reusable rocket is more cost-efficient than a Starship-sized one.