China's Space Program Thread II

[tacoburger]

The Long March 6 is a launcher for small sats.

Of which China already has like a dozen different already in service rockets that can do the same job. Which is already the case seeing as the CZ-6 launches once a year compared to rockets like the Ceres-1, Kinetica series, CZ-11 etc etc. Why make an upgraded version when it's just going to share the same fate?

And the Long March 8 is just a Long March 7 with two side boosters instead of four.

With rockets, even minor changes take a lot of effort and time. It's not like a car where you can slap modifications on it willy nilly and still expect the car to work fine. The long march 7 and 8 barely launches as it is. Why make an upgraded version of the CZ-8 when there's gonna to be a dozen similar rockets flying in the near future, but designed to be reusable? Most of them private yes, but the CZ-10A is similar in performance to an upgraded CZ-8 and it's expected to be reusable and have it's first flight in 2025/2026.

Do note that this in on the backdrop of the national space agencies probably bleeding a lot of staff to private companies over the last few years. I don't think that they can afford to waste human resources on rockets that are probably going to fly a handful of times before reusable rockets completely take over and be obsolete before it even made it's maiden flight. The CZ-8 has flown 2 times in the last 4 years, an upgraded version isn't going to magically make the rocket more attractive.

 

[gelgoog]

When the CZ-6 was developed Chinese private space launchers did not exist. And there will likely be military payloads of experimental satellites that the government won't want to be done by private space launch companies. So it certainly has its niche.
The CZ-7/8 use existing CZ-2/3 factory tooling and logistics routes. The stages have basically the same diameter. The CZ-10 will use the same factory tooling as CZ-5. So while they might have a similar level of payload capability the resource they use up isn't the same.
CZ-7/8 allow using existing rocket factories which make the CZ-2/3 to make new rockets which don't use hypergolic fuel.

I think the main issue with lack of CZ-7/8 launches thus far is the lack of spaceport capacity for these rockets. They are currently being launched from a single pad at Hainan island. The number of upper stage preparation buildings is also limited. But it is expected that the amount of launch pads at Hainan island for this rocket will increase.

 

[sunnymaxi]

The CZ-10 will use the same factory tooling as CZ-5. So while they might have a similar level of payload capability the resource they use up isn't the same.

yeah CZ-10 based on existing technologies of CZ-5 include main engine YF-100 with upgrades.. but CZ-10 lift capacity is far heavier than CZ-5 as this Rocket is for manned moon mission..

 

[gelgoog]

The CZ-10 is a better CZ-5. You get similar or better launch capability without having to make as many side boosters. Plus it is optionally reusable.

 

[Gentyri]

Of which China already has like a dozen different already in service rockets that can do the same job. Which is already the case seeing as the CZ-6 launches once a year compared to rockets like the Ceres-1, Kinetica series, CZ-11 etc etc. Why make an upgraded version when it's just going to share the same fate?

With rockets, even minor changes take a lot of effort and time. It's not like a car where you can slap modifications on it willy nilly and still expect the car to work fine. The long march 7 and 8 barely launches as it is. Why make an upgraded version of the CZ-8 when there's gonna to be a dozen similar rockets flying in the near future, but designed to be reusable? Most of them private yes, but the CZ-10A is similar in performance to an upgraded CZ-8 and it's expected to be reusable and have it's first flight in 2025/2026.

Do note that this in on the backdrop of the national space agencies probably bleeding a lot of staff to private companies over the last few years. I don't think that they can afford to waste human resources on rockets that are probably going to fly a handful of times before reusable rockets completely take over and be obsolete before it even made it's maiden flight. The CZ-8 has flown 2 times in the last 4 years, an upgraded version isn't going to magically make the rocket more attractive.

The different numbers are a bit of a misnomer. Long March 7 and 8 are mix-and-match variations on the same cores and boosters, like Atlas or Vulcan. Long March 6, 6A, and 6C are also mix-and-match and are operated by SAST, which is different from CAST (7, 8, 12). While Long March 12 is completely different, it is designed to compete for commercial operations, not government operations like CZ7/8. There are really three launch systems here, not six.

 

[by78]

Phase II of the Compound Eye distributed aperture deep space radar project has begun. This phase will see the construction of 25 30-meter aperture radars on Zhongzhou Island (中洲岛) in Chongqing municipality. The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is part of China's planetary defense against astroids.

The first

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for the Compound Eye distributed aperture deep space radars

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The output is 70kW (continuous).

 

[tacoburger]

When the CZ-6 was developed Chinese private space launchers did not exist

I'm talking about the upgraded version, the LM-6C that will make it's maiden flight this year.

And there will likely be military payloads of experimental satellites that the government won't want to be done by private space launch companies.

CAS space and Expace are all completely stated owned. And they both operate 4 different small lift rocket between them. All launching many more times then the LM-6.

So it certainly has its niche.

The original was averaging around one launch a year, that was before a dozen small lift solid fueled rockets popped up. I really don't see how the LM-6C will fare any better when the launch market is completely over heated, especially for small lift.

The different numbers are a bit of a misnomer. Long March 7 and 8 are mix-and-match variations on the same cores and boosters, like Atlas or Vulcan. Long March 6, 6A, and 6C are also mix-and-match and are operated by SAST, which is different from CAST (7, 8, 12).

The CZ-7/8 use existing CZ-2/3 factory tooling and logistics routes. The stages have basically the same diameter. The CZ-10 will use the same factory tooling as CZ-5. So while they might have a similar level of payload capability the resource they use up isn't the same.

This is rocket science. Even minor changes require a disproportionate of work just to ensure that the rocket doesn't fail and waste your million dollar satellite. We have seen in aerospace how minor changes can lead to massive issues. There's a reason why we don't see a dozen variants of the J-20, even a tiny tiny change to it's hull is gonna result in massive changes to it's RCS.

What's the point? The LM 6/7/8 are barely launching as it is, slightly upgraded versions won't do anything to make the rockets more popular. This is when reusable rockets are gonna eat up market share within the next 2-3 years. How many LM-6C, LM-8G, LM-12 will launch before they are rendered obsolete? Might have been useful 4 years ago maybe.

And again, it's not just about money and tooling. Rocket engineers don't grow on trees. You can have infinite money and infinite factories but it doesn't matter much without the people behind them. The national space agencies have been bleeding staff to private companies for the last few years and it's not a good idea to spread your staff between too many projects. Even if the rockets required minimal work to physically make due to the similar parts, tooling and logistics as you claim, that still a lot of manpower and work hours needed to run simulations and wind tunnels tests and safety checks etc etc. Work can be hardware poor but manpower/work hour intensive.

CZ-7/8 allow using existing rocket factories which make the CZ-2/3 to make new rockets which don't use hypergolic fuel.

The LM 7/8 have barely eaten into the hypergolic rocket launches despite being years old. The LM-8 has been active since 2020 and has flown 2 times. Why would an slightly upgraded version fare any better when private companies are gonna to be churning out reusable rockets of better performance range within the next 2-3 years?

 

[sunnymaxi]

China's first large-scale scientific device in the aerospace field is officially operational! Can conduct experiments on the ground to simulate space environment..​

According to reports from CCTV News Client and Xinhua News Agency, on February 27, the "Space Environment Ground Simulation Device" national major science and technology infrastructure project jointly built by Harbin Institute of Technology and China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation officially passed national acceptance. This is the first step in China's aerospace field. The first large-scale scientific device , which can comprehensively simulate nine types of space environmental factors such as low temperature, vacuum, and electromagnetic radiation, is also called a "ground space station."

The "Space Environment Ground Simulation Device" national major scientific and technological infrastructure project focuses on major basic scientific and technological issues in the aerospace field, and builds my country's first large-scale research base in the scientific field of space comprehensive environment and spacecraft, living organisms and plasma interaction, forming An internationally leading experimental research platform for space environment coupling effects. Compared with moving experimental instruments and equipment into space, the "ground space station" can not only save costs and reduce safety hazards, but also can set specific environmental factors according to scientific issues and engineering needs, and conduct repeated verifications without time and space constraints, thus Create safer and more convenient experimental conditions and scientific research methods.



The National Acceptance Committee, co-directed by Xu Nanping, academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and director of the Suzhou Laboratory, believes that the project has broken through a series of key technologies in the field of space environment simulation and its interaction with matter. The overall construction indicators of the project are at the internationally advanced level, and some key The technical indicators are at the international leading level, the device operation results are outstanding, and the scientific and technological and social benefits are significant. It is approved to pass the national acceptance.

Han Jiecai, academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and president of Harbin Institute of Technology, said that the device is of great significance to my country's major scientific and technological innovation breakthroughs, industrial transformation and upgrading, and the cultivation of high-end talents. In the future, the school will continue to optimize the technical indicators of the device, continue to improve the scientific level of the device, accelerate the formation of more independent intellectual property technologies, and make new contributions to my country's major leap from a major aerospace country to a powerful aerospace country.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

@tacoburger, from reading your posts in the last couple of pages I believe that your arguments can be summarized in two main points. One, the state team is loosing manpowers (in your words bleeding). Two, there is a free competetion in China like in the US. IMO these two points are all opposite to reality.

Firstly there is an over supply of trained engineers in Chinese space industry. Newly graduates can not all find a job in the national programs, so some of them go to the private sector. This is a general situation among all industrial sectors, back in my days a bachlor garantees a good job, today a bachlor may go straight to unemployment after graduation, a master today is roughly equal to a bachlor. That is why the state opens up the space business to private investment to help in keeping the these brains, and also absord the oversupply of cash instead of them going into real estate which would be really bad. There are also lots of ideas in the state programs that lost competition. Instead of wasting the R&D work already done, the state lets some of the people to realize their ideas in the private sector. Example is all the open cycle engines being used for commercial market, either by state entities (CAS, Exapace) or private companies (open cycle methane engines). CZ-12 is just one of them, its 3.8m rocket is the failed proposal for 921 by 8th institute. There was two teams within CASC to compete for 921, CZ-10 won, so 8th realizes its work in CZ-12. It isn't like what you suggested that 8th institute has nothing better to do by creating a parallel work, it would be a waste if they didn't make CZ-12.

Secondly, China isn't as free as US. If rockets are buses, then satellites (payload) are passengers. In the US both are private entities. In China CASC owns majorities of the busses, other state entities own majorities of passengers. They have the owner the state. Besides CASC owns all the bus stations (launch facilities). Competition is regulated by the state in a way like "state decides who gets what size of the pie". Private launchers get what are alotted to them by the state. Is it bad for technology development? Not when the state teams are leaders. The advancement of private sectors are blown out of propotion due to their publicity and people's fetish of SpaceX story.

 

[tacoburger]

from reading your posts in the last couple of pages I believe that your arguments can be summarized in two main points. One, the state team is loosing manpowers (in your words bleeding). Two, there is a free competetion in China like in the US. IMO these two points are all opposite to reality.

Two main points I'm making.

1) Excessive variants complicate logistics. It doesn't matter if they use the same tooling and same engines, it's still better to focus on a smaller core of workhorse rockets. Especially in the current space race of everyone trying to make the next Falcon 9 and the race to the moon.

2) Waste of resources for rockets that are basically obsolete on before they can even make their maiden flight. Best case scenario, they launch a handful of times before retiring due to competition from reusable rockets. Worse case scenario CALT and SAST throw their weight around to have this rockets fly more, in expense of private companies reusable rocket designs. We already see this happening, one entire launchpad in Hainan commercial spaceport is solely reversed for the LM-8 launches, while a dozen private companies have to fight for the the mere 16 launches a year the other launchpad offers.

Anyway, even if China has a glut of trained rocket engineers, it's still wasteful and a sign of some really poor leadership to have them working on projects like this. China has a glut of manpower too, it's still a massive waste to hire millions of people to dig holes and fill them in endlessly. This isn't the 2000s anymore, everyone is gunning for a slice of the LEO pie and trying to make their mega-constellations and the current moon craze, this is not the time for pointless side projects. Money and resources should be concenrated into actually useful projects like the CZ-10 and CZ-9.

Is it bad for technology development? Not when the state teams are leaders.

Yes it's bad for technology development. What new technology does the LM-6C, LM-8G and LM-12 have? People keep telling me how they reuse engines and parts from previous rockets.

Private launchers get what are alotted to them by the state. Is it bad for technology development? Not when the state teams are leaders. The advancement of private sectors are blown out of propotion due to their publicity and people's fetish of SpaceX story.

Even if we ignore private companies, it's still stupid to try to develop an non-reusable rocket after 2016. There's a reason why the LM-9 has changed it's designs to a Starship clone. National space agencies have to compete with other countries after all. Even solely within China's national space agences, they still have to compete with other rockets like CZ-10A, which is at least that is designed to be reusable. Oh and of course the advancement of the private sector is gonna be neutered when the state wastes resources like this instead of giving money and resources to a company that actually is trying to make some new technology.

You guys are just giving excuses for why it's less bad, "Oh the tooling and engines are the same so it won't cause that much to develop compared to a totally new rocket", "China has an oversupply of rocket engineers so it doesn't matter if hundreds of people spent years of their life working on an obsolete rocket".

None of you can actually give an actual good reason why it makes sense for there to be an slightly upgraded version of the LM-6, the rocket that has flown like once a year for the last 6 years and whom there's a dozen other small lift rockets already in service meant to do the same job. Or why develop an upgraded version of the LM-8, which has flown 2 times in the last 4 years and when there's gonna to be a dozen more capable resuable medium lift rockets coming online in the next few years. Or why an entirely new rocket in the form of the LM-12, which like all new rockets, costs a bomb to develop and will have teething issues for a year or two, at which point they will be facing competition from both the state and private sector in the form of resuable rockets.

The base variant of the LM-6 and LM-8 can't even eat into the launch rates of the hypergolic rockets, a lightly upgraded version aren't gonna make a big splash in the new era of resuable rockets.