China's Space Program Thread II

[gelgoog]

reversing a entire launchpad for the CZ-8 that can't seem to launch more then once a year is just a massive waste

Didn't you read the comment by the designer? Two pads will launch 50 CZ-8 rockets a year. Basically replacing the legacy launchers.
Anyway, from what I understand, the second pad is already under construction. To increase launcher production rate will require the new pulsed production line.

CZ-10 is still several years away so this is perfectly normal. And I don't think the Chinese government has any expectations with regards to the private launchers. Private launchers will be expected to launch private payloads. This isn't the US government. And even they use ULA for a lot of the launches.

 

[tacoburger]

CZ-10 is still several years away so this is perfectly normal.

And the 50 CZ-8 launch rates are also many years away considering that the CZ-8 launch rate has been once a year for the last 4 years. You really think that they can scale up production 50 times in the 2-3 years it will take for the CZ-10 to enter service? Or the 2-5 other reusable rocket designs by other government space agencies or SOEs?

Even if they somehow manage to vastly scale up and launch 50 CZ-8 starting from next year, replacing most of the hypergolic launches. That's 2025, by 2027 the CZ-10 and other government reusable rockets will be up and running, alongside a couple of private ones. Why spend billions on a mega-factory that can produce 50 rockets a year, for 2 years only before it gets supplanted by new technology? This is like spending billions to set up a factory to produce ICE cars, for the factory to be finished and start production in 2032, 2 years before ICE cars bans in many major cities and countries. If you're spending billions, you would typically like to get a return of investment and more then a handful of years of use. Would you spend billions on a bridge or dam if you knew that it can only last a handful of years?

And of course in reality, it will probably take 5+ years for the CZ-8 numbers to reach 50 a year considering how slowly production has been ramping up. By then, China should be focusing on a Starship clone and should already be fully mature in 1st stage reusable rockets. Mucking around with 50 CZ-8 launches a year in 2030 is laughable. China is not a vaccum here. They're indirectly in a race with America/SpaceX, they will be eaten alive if they're moving at the pace at you're suggesting. They need to be moving faster, not dicking around with a rocket that was obsolete before it even had it's maiden launch.

nd I don't think the Chinese government has any expectations with regards to the private launchers. Private launchers will be expected to launch private payloads. This isn't the US government. And even they use ULA for a lot of the launches.

Which is still a waste considering that the private companies are clearly moving faster then their government counterparts, reserving an entire launchpad for rocket that can barely launch once a year instead of letting private companies launch and refine their reusable rockets is a waste.

Private launchers will be expected to launch private payloads.

Really? Because it's clear that private companies are key to launching the Guowang mega-constellations, which are not private in nature. And the G60 and Guowang mega-constellations by their nature are going to vastly outnumber every other kind of payload out there. And let's not pretend that satellite internet mega-constellation don't have dual use as extremely important military assets. Let's be real here, the Guowang/G60 primary use will be military, even if it's not their "offical" use.

 

[Blitzo]

And the 50 CZ-8 launch rates are also many years away considering that the CZ-8 launch rate has been once a year for the last 4 years. You really think that they can scale up production 50 times in the 2-3 years it will take for the CZ-10 to enter service? Or the 2-5 other reusable rocket designs by other government space agencies or SOEs?

Even if they somehow manage to vastly scale up and launch 50 CZ-8 starting from next year, replacing most of the hypergolic launches. That's 2025, by 2027 the CZ-10 and other government reusable rockets will be up and running, alongside a couple of private ones. Why spend billions on a mega-factory that can produce 50 rockets a year, for 2 years only before it gets supplanted by new technology? This is like spending billions to set up a factory to produce ICE cars, for the factory to be finished and start production in 2032, 2 years before ICE cars bans in many major cities and countries. If you're spending billions, you would typically like to get a return of investment and more then a handful of years of use. Would you spend billions on a bridge or dam if you knew that it can only last a handful of years?

And of course in reality, it will probably take 5+ years for the CZ-8 numbers to reach 50 a year considering how slowly production has been ramping up. By then, China should be focusing on a Starship clone and should already be fully mature in 1st stage reusable rockets. Mucking around with 50 CZ-8 launches a year in 2030 is laughable. China is not a vaccum here. They're indirectly in a race with America/SpaceX, they will be eaten alive if they're moving at the pace at you're suggesting. They need to be moving faster, not dicking around with a rocket that was obsolete before it even had it's maiden launch.

Which is still a waste considering that the private companies are clearly moving faster then their government counterparts, reserving an entire launchpad for rocket that can barely launch once a year instead of letting private companies launch and refine their reusable rockets is a waste.

Really? Because it's clear that private companies are key to launching the Guowang mega-constellations, which are not private in nature. And the G60 and Guowang mega-constellations by their nature are going to vastly outnumber every other kind of payload out there. And let's not pretend that satellite internet mega-constellation don't have dual use as extremely important military assets. Let's be real here, the Guowang/G60 primary use will be military, even if it's not their "offical" use.

If there are commercial companies which can do better, or even alternative state companies which can do better, then they'll get more launch slots.
There's no reason why they, as well as all players, shouldn't be working towards a future where their own rocket design can have expanded launch rates if certain prerequisites are met.

And the rockets and designs which are less competitive will ultimately not be selected and die off.


I don't see anything wrong with that, unless the goal is to have the state choose a few select designs that they should invest heavily in and leave everything else to wither. Personally I can see an argument for that, but it should also be rather obvious by now that this isn't how the Chinese government is approaching space launch vehicles into the near future, but rather wanting everyone to tackle different segments of differing sophistication and risk profiles simultaneously.

 

[gelgoog]

And the 50 CZ-8 launch rates are also many years away considering that the CZ-8 launch rate has been once a year for the last 4 years. You really think that they can scale up production 50 times in the 2-3 years it will take for the CZ-10 to enter service? Or the 2-5 other reusable rocket designs by other government space agencies or SOEs?

And who knows how reliable those private rockets will be? And how many of those private rockets have similar launch capabilities to the CZ-7/8? The CZ-8 in contrast is a known quantity. It is basically a simplified CZ-7. The CZ-7 has had like over a dozen consecutive successful launches. The CZ-8 itself only had three. But all were successful. The launch pads will be able to launch both rockets. It seems to me like you want to run a space program on vaporware. That is not how China typically operates.

The history of space flight is littered with failures. You seem to think all the Chinese private rockets are a done deal. Well that couldn't be further from the truth.

Even if they somehow manage to vastly scale up and launch 50 CZ-8 starting from next year, replacing most of the hypergolic launches. That's 2025, by 2027 the CZ-10 and other government reusable rockets will be up and running, alongside a couple of private ones.

You are being really optimistic. I don't know about the single core CZ-10, but the triple core will most likely require building its own launch pad, or substantial modifications to the CZ-5 pad.

Why spend billions on a mega-factory that can produce 50 rockets a year, for 2 years only before it gets supplanted by new technology? This is like spending billions to set up a factory to produce ICE cars, for the factory to be finished and start production in 2032, 2 years before ICE cars bans in many major cities and countries. If you're spending billions, you would typically like to get a return of investment and more then a handful of years of use. Would you spend billions on a bridge or dam if you knew that it can only last a handful of years?

I already said it before. The smaller diameter rockets like CZ-7/8 can be transported via railroad. Which means they can be launched from inland sites in case it is necessary. Large diameter rockets like CZ-5/10 will need to be carried by barge to the launch site. They will most likely be able to convert the old facilities for CZ-2/3/4 to make the CZ-7/8. You seem to assume setting up a pulsed line is this hugely expensive enterprise. Well, the thing is, a pulsed line is just a matter of organizing production. You can set it up at existing facilities. Not necessarily new ones. It could be as simple as laying out the production workflow at the existing factory to work in a pulsed line fashion instead of whatever they do now.

And of course in reality, it will probably take 5+ years for the CZ-8 numbers to reach 50 a year considering how slowly production has been ramping up.

And your non-existent, non-proven, preferred rocket designs will take at least twice as long to reach the same. If not triple the time.

By then, China should be focusing on a Starship clone and should already be fully mature in 1st stage reusable rockets. Mucking around with 50 CZ-8 launches a year in 2030 is laughable. China is not a vaccum here. They're indirectly in a race with America/SpaceX, they will be eaten alive if they're moving at the pace at you're suggesting. They need to be moving faster, not dicking around with a rocket that was obsolete before it even had it's maiden launch.

The Soviet Union also thought they had to keep parity with the US at everything. Fat load of good it did to them. If it was me, I wouldn't even bother making a Starship clone. For your information, one of the programs which is typically attributed as having caused the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union, is the Energia/Buran program. And guess what that was. A superheavy rocket with a reusable vehicle.
Superheavy rockets are a waste of money. The demand just isn't there. Reusable ones make even less sense.
Something like the CZ-10 with the triple core is more than enough. Heck the single core version would be good for like 90% of the satellites one would ever need to launch.

Which is still a waste considering that the private companies are clearly moving faster then their government counterparts, reserving an entire launchpad for rocket that can barely launch once a year instead of letting private companies launch and refine their reusable rockets is a waste.

The CZ-8 is part of the CZ-7 family. It is basically the same rocket. Uses the same base modules and the same launch pad (LC-2). The CZ-7 does like 3 launches a year. And the CZ-8 does 1. So it's like 4 launches a year. Like I already said I am assuming the production ramp up was delayed because of the lockdowns.

Really? Because it's clear that private companies are key to launching the Guowang mega-constellations, which are not private in nature. And the G60 and Guowang mega-constellations by their nature are going to vastly outnumber every other kind of payload out there. And let's not pretend that satellite internet mega-constellation don't have dual use as extremely important military assets. Let's be real here, the Guowang/G60 primary use will be military, even if it's not their "offical" use.

The CZ-7 was made to launch the Tianzhou space station ressuply vehicle. And it can also launch satellites. It uses basically the same engines as the CZ-5 side boosters and the CZ-10 will use. The rocket is already developed at this point and is a known quantity.

 

[tacoburger]

If there are commercial companies which can do better, or even alternative state companies which can do better, then they'll get more launch slots.
There's no reason why they, as well as all players, shouldn't be working towards a future where their own rocket design can have expanded launch rates if certain prerequisites are met.

And the rockets and designs which are less competitive will ultimately not be selected and die off.

This doesn't excuse the how many billions spent on the expanded CZ-8 production line that could have gone to other ventures instead. A factory capable of producing 50 rockets a year is bigggg. That's more rockets then SK, Europe, India and Russia combined launched in 2023. That's half of what China is launching a year. That's no small amount of investment. That's money and resources that could have gone to any other number of other projects.

And that's if it's allowed to die out. There's sunk cost fallacy, good old corruption and government inertial that could keep the CZ-8 launching long past it's supposed expiry date. Like how the China's hypergolic fleet still keeps flying even with viable replacements in place for years now.

Let's take one of the cheapest rocket system, the F9. It's 67 million per rocket. For an low end let's say that due to economies of scale the CZ-8 is 50 million per rocket. At 50 rockets a year, that's 2.5 billion. For the rockets alone. Of course the factory line to produce said rockets will likely exceed this by many times.

I don't see anything wrong with that, unless the goal is to have the state choose a few select designs that they should invest heavily in and leave everything else to wither. Personally I can see an argument for that, but it should also be rather obvious by now that this isn't how the Chinese government is approaching space launch vehicles into the near future, but rather wanting everyone to tackle different segments of differing sophistication and risk profiles simultaneously.

Projects like this should be cancelled, or never undertaken in the first place. Like I first said, it really seems like there's two camps in the space agencies, one that seems stuck 20 years in the past and seems to think that reusable rockets will never work and there's the more progressive side that is the one working on actually innovative projects.

It's not like it's a small project. Again, 50 rockets a year. That's a big project that required high level government approval, it's not some side project that took a couple million and a few people to make. It's probably one of the single largest rocket production line in history. Pouring that much money and resources into that one project does mean that someone else 100% got the short end of the stick. Oh and the fact that it will get an entire launchpad reserved for it doesn't strike you special when the private companies are going to be fighting for a chance getting a launchpad.

You don't just blunder into this kind of projects without tons of oversight and viability assessments, but no one ever thought to think "hmmm, there's like a dozen reusable rockets coming online around the same time as our mega-factory, maybe it would be a mistake to mass produce an expandable rocket of this scale in a time where the rocket industry is being turned onto it's head" Can you imagine the 3 gorges dam, but instead of the years and years of prep work that went into it's construction, someone just randomly pointed to a spot on a map and they started building there. And then after it finished building, it's revealed that due to being built on some random spot on a river, it's will only have an lifespan of 5 years. Do you think people will just shrug and go "Oh well, sometimes you spend billion on a project only to have it fail, it happens, there's plenty of other dams being build, so the government shouldn't decide on what dams to invest heavily in and what dam wither away" No, should roll for this.

It's not like it's the only one. Somehow someone thought that it would be a good idea to develop the CZ-12, an expandable rocket, around the same time as when a dozen reusable rockets are making their maiden flight.

There always has to be some level of planning involved for anything really, be it private or government. You don't build a two dams a hundred meters from each other, you don't want to build a bridge that blocks a busy river, you don't want to build a city over prime farmland, you don't want to build a hundred new coal mines in a country that's trying to phase out coal etc etc People have gone to jail for mis-use of govenment/investor money.

 

[gelgoog]

The Chinese state needs to launch payloads on actual rockets. Not vapor.

Do you think they will get CZ-10 reusable on the first flight? Maybe you need to look at SpaceX's launch history and how long it took for them to get Falcon 9 reuse working.

The Chinese space authorities know perfectly well what they are doing. The CZ-10 is a cheaper and simpler to manufacture iteration on the CZ-5. And it will have potential to eventually be reusable. But that will likely be many launches into the future.

Just consider this. You think setting up a factory and building a launch pad for a rocket that a) uses existing engines b) uses existing tooling c) is proven. Is a bad idea. But you think developing half a dozen or a dozen of whole new rockets with completely different engines, fuels, and production facilities, launch sites, like the Chinese private space companies are doing, is economically efficient. Do you think that makes any sense?

You also seem to think, for whatever reason, that making a factory for 50 rockets a year, will be substantially more expensive in terms of fixed costs than a factory for the current 4 rockets a year. Well I kind of doubt it. You will need more staff, but you can just move them from the available production lines which made the legacy rockets.

 

[tacoburger]

And who knows how reliable those private rockets will be? And how many of those private rockets have similar launch capabilities to the CZ-7/8? The CZ-8 in contrast is a known quantity. It is basically a simplified CZ-7. The CZ-7 has had like over a dozen consecutive successful launches. The CZ-8 itself only had three. But all were successful. The launch pads will be able to launch both rockets.

Why are you the acting like the hypergolic fleet and the dozen or so solid fueled rockets will disappear? And we already have private rockets like the ZQ-2 that has launched the same number of times as the CZ-8 despite having it's maiden flight later and carries around the same payload. We will get the answer soon anyway. There's 6 maiden flights of resauble rocket over 2024 and 2025 and there's no reason why the private sector can't just expand it's production of existing expendable rockets like the ZQ-2 and the dozen or so solid fueled rockets.

The history of space flight is littered with failures. You seem to think all the Chinese private rockets are a done deal. Well that couldn't be further from the truth.

When there's a dozen of them, a few will succeed. There's literally 3 of them having their maiden launch this year.

I already said it before. The smaller diameter rockets like CZ-7/8 can be transported via railroad. Which means they can be launched from inland sites in case it is necessary. Large diameter rockets like CZ-5/10 will need to be carried by barge.

Which is why of course, the CZ-8 has it's own reserved coastal launchpad in Hanian and every launch so far has been in Wenchang. Saying that it could be launched from inland sites isn't saying much when it's clearly not the plan. What's next, using the long march series as nuclear IBCMs? Possible, but clearly not intended and what's the fucking point.

They will most likely be able to convert the old facilities for CZ-2/3/4 to make the CZ-7/8. You seem to assume setting up a pulsed line is this hugely expensive enterprise. Well, the thing is, a pulsed line is just a matter of organizing production. You can set it up at existing facilities. Not necessarily new ones. It could as simple as laying out the production workflow at the existing factory to work in a pulsed line fashion instead of whatever they do now.

You say that, but production times for the CZ-8 have been static for the last 4 years. If it was so easy, we'll have seen a steady ramp up in launch rates already. They can't even do two per year. Even the private launch companies like Landspace are doing 2 launches a year.

And please, this is 50 rockets a year. That's one of the biggest singular rocket production lines in history and you think it's easy? That's half of China's current annual launches. That's more launches then Russia, Europe and India combined. Let's take one of the cheapest rocket system, the F9. It's 67 million per rocket. For an low end let's say that due to economies of scale the CZ-8 is 50 million per rocket. At 50 rockets a year, that's 2.5 billion. For the rockets alone. Of course the factory line to produce said rockets will likely exceed this by many times. I have never seen a factory that cost less then the products that it was making, in a year at least.

And your non-existent, non-proven, preferred rocket designs will take at least twice as long to reach the same. If not triple the time.

For which China already has her existing fleets of rockets to pick up the slack, including private expandable rockets that have already launched, like the ZQ-2. Meanwhile your non-existent, non-proven ramp up of the CZ-8 has shown no signs of actually happening. We already know how the maiden flights of many of the reusable rockets in question, we have no idea when the CZ-8 will reach the magical number of two flights a year, let alone 50. Hell even private companies like Landspace are ramping up faster then the CZ-8, the ZQ-2 had it's maiden flight in 2022, 2 flights in 2023, expected to have 3 flights in 2024, six in 2025, and 12 in 2026. That's a proven expendable rocket so you shouldn't have any issues right?

The only useful case for such an insane ramp up in the CZ-8 production at this point of time if you're expecting that China's every attempt at reusable rockets fails catastrophically and that China only get it's F9 clone around 2030. And that existing private expendable rockets like the TL-2/ZQ-2 also fail and don't ramp up.

Anyway, as shown by SpaceX using 12 F9 boosters to launch more payload then every other launch provider combined, you don't need to ramp up production of reusable rockets much for them to be able to make a huge impact. Just a handful of them launching often is enough.

If it was me, I wouldn't even bother making a Starship clone.

Well you aren't head of the LM-9 project and the head of the LM-9 program deemed Starship to be such a big deal that he completely scrapped their existing plans and pivoted to a Starship clone despite adding a decade to the development time so...

Superheavy rockets are a waste of money. The demand just isn't there. Reusable ones make even less sense.

Actual quotes by ESA/roscosmos rocket engineers 10 years ago "resuable rockets are a waste of money, SpaceX will never land and resuse a rocket, we all saw how the space shuttle turned out"

The Chinese state needs to launch payloads on actual rockets. Not vapor.

There's already plenty of actual rockets flying today. Hell, Landspace and Space pioneer can launch actual liquid fueled expandable rockets just fine if you think that reusable rockets are impossible.

Do you think they will get CZ-10 reusable on the first flight? Maybe you need to look at SpaceX's launch history and how long it took for them to get Falcon 9 reuse working.

And if it isn't reusable, it's just another perfectly useable expandable rocket that can launch a payload into space, same as with the CZ-8. The same with all the private reusable rockets. Sure they will take a while to become reusable, but they can do a their jobs at sending payloads into orbit without being resauble. The difference is that every launch is a learning journey that will eventually help to make their rocket resauble.

Not vapor.

Like the ramp up of the CZ-8 that doesn't seem to be happening?

The Chinese space authorities know perfectly well what they are doing. The CZ-10 is a cheaper and simpler to manufacture iteration on the CZ-5. And it will have potential to eventually be reusable. But that will likely be many launches into the future.

And before it becomes reusable, it will still send payloads into orbit just fine.

Like I already said I am assuming the production ramp up was delayed because of the lockdowns.

If that was the case, all of China's rocket production would have been delayed equally. Go and take a look at China's launch rate growth over the last 4 years.

It is basically the same rocket.

Other then the boosters. This is rocket science, even minor changes take a lot of effort. You could call the Falcon heavy just 3 F9 first stages strapped togethor, but apparently this took an insane amount of engineering effort from Spacex, a lot more then they expected.

 

[gelgoog]

Don't be ridiculous. The CZ-7, CZ-7A, and CZ-8 are basically the same rocket. The CZ-8 has two or zero side boosters. The CZ-7 has four side boosters. The CZ-7A variant and the CZ-8 have the same last stage. They launch from the same LC-2 pad. The names are just nomenclature. CZ-7/7A/8 is one base rocket in different configurations. 0/2/4 side boosters and two different upper stage configurations.

And yet you continue this stupid lie, like they can only make and launch one rocket a year. Which is a lie. Like I already told you, that single pad, LC-2, launches four rockets a year already. CZ-7/7A/8. It's the same rocket. And CZ-7 is necessary, because it is the only rocket at this point which can launch the Tianzhou resupply vehicle for the space station. Without which the station can't even operate.

50 launches a year is perfectly doable. Just compute the total amount of CZ-2/3/4 launches. It is within the same ballpark. Those rockets have the same diameter and use the same tooling.

Even if the rocket gets displaced by CZ-10 later, since both rockets use the same engine, only the factory which assembles the tanks and attaches the engines to them for CZ-7/7A/8 would be rendered redundant. Compared with your half a dozen different private sector factories with a dozen rocket models each with its own rocket engine.

Hell even private companies like Landspace are ramping up faster then the CZ-8, the ZQ-2 had it's maiden flight in 2022, 2 flights in 2023, expected to have 3 flights in 2024, six in 2025, and 12 in 2026.

More vapor. Nonexistent launches on nonexistent rockets from 2026. The truth for ZQ-2 is three launches total. The first one was a failure. The second one was without a satellite, because no one in their right mind would risk a satellite on an unproven rocket, and the third one put satellites up. And it still doesn't have the same payload as CZ-8. Let alone CZ-7A. It can't even put payloads into GTO.

For which China already has her existing fleets of rockets to pick up the slack, including private expandable rockets that have already launched, like the ZQ-2. Meanwhile your non-existent, non-proven ramp up of the CZ-8

The CZ-8 has flown three times. All successfully. It can put 6000 kg into LEO. And your precious ZQ-2 has flown three times. Two successes and one failure. It can put 4000 kg into LEO. And four CZ-7/7A/8 flew in 2022.

Like the ramp up of the CZ-8 that doesn't seem to be happening?

Didn't you read what the Chief Designer said? They are setting up the pulsed production line. I would assume right now each rocket is basically assembled in a workshop.

If that was the case, all of China's rocket production would have been delayed equally. Go and take a look at China's launch rate growth over the last 4 years.

For what? Legacy rockets CZ-2/3/4? Those could have easily been stockpiled. In this case construction of the launch pad, and moving to a pulsed line was clearly delayed.

Other then the boosters. This is rocket science, even minor changes take a lot of effort. You could call the Falcon heavy just 3 F9 first stages strapped togethor, but apparently this took an insane amount of engineering effort from Spacex, a lot more then they expected.

What effort? The CZ-7, which flew first, is the one with the four boosters. The CZ-8 has less boosters, not more. It's simpler. It's the same rocket. Launched from the same pad. And made in the same factory. The only difference was when they put the last stage from the CZ-3 to make the CZ-7A. The first flight failed, but they got it working on the flight afterwards. And this meant when the exact same configuration was flown in the CZ-8 later of course it worked perfectly first time.

Well you aren't head of the LM-9 project and the head of the LM-9 program deemed Starship to be such a big deal that he completely scrapped their existing plans and pivoted to a Starship clone despite adding a decade to the development time so...

Superheavy rockets are dumb. Period. Starship, LM-9, they are all idiotic. There is no need for that kind of of rocket given the current launch requirements. Heck, even the launch requirement for the next two decades. Something like F9 Heavy or CZ-10 with the triple core are in excess of requirements even.

Actual quotes by ESA/roscosmos rocket engineers 10 years ago "resuable rockets are a waste of money, SpaceX will never land and resuse a rocket, we all saw how the space shuttle turned out"

I never doubted F9 was in theory economically viable if they could get it to work. But Starship isn't.

Just put this in your head. The more reusable the rocket is, the shorter the turnaround time, the more launches you do with it, the less large the rocket needs to be. To put the same upmass in orbit.

The only reasons to use a superheavy are if you either have an indivisible payload you need to put up into space, or you have to put so much upmass in orbit that it justifies the huge expense of building the superheavy and its factory. The current requirements worldwide for indivisible payloads are supposedly one flight every two years, with a max of one flight every year in the future. If you make the superheavy reusable, you would make a factory to make a single rocket which would then be idle over the duration of the program. Now I'll give you another tidbit. Mass production of a vehicle can decrease its unit cost by an order of magnitude. So would you rather make a single reusable rocket, or make ten expendable rockets. Think.

There's already plenty of actual rockets flying today. Hell, Landspace and Space pioneer can launch actual liquid fueled expandable rockets just fine if you think that reusable rockets are impossible.

The Douglas DC-X proved that many decades ago. Only SpaceX fans think otherwise.
What SpaceX did was reuse an orbital rocket. Unfortunately the DC-Y was never built. Otherwise it would have been first.

 

[Blitzo]

This doesn't excuse the how many billions spent on the expanded CZ-8 production line that could have gone to other ventures instead. A factory capable of producing 50 rockets a year is bigggg. That's more rockets then SK, Europe, India and Russia combined launched in 2023. That's half of what China is launching a year. That's no small amount of investment. That's money and resources that could have gone to any other number of other projects.

And that's if it's allowed to die out. There's sunk cost fallacy, good old corruption and government inertial that could keep the CZ-8 launching long past it's supposed expiry date. Like how the China's hypergolic fleet still keeps flying even with viable replacements in place for years now.

Let's take one of the cheapest rocket system, the F9. It's 67 million per rocket. For an low end let's say that due to economies of scale the CZ-8 is 50 million per rocket. At 50 rockets a year, that's 2.5 billion. For the rockets alone. Of course the factory line to produce said rockets will likely exceed this by many times.

Projects like this should be cancelled, or never undertaken in the first place. Like I first said, it really seems like there's two camps in the space agencies, one that seems stuck 20 years in the past and seems to think that reusable rockets will never work and there's the more progressive side that is the one working on actually innovative projects.

It's not like it's a small project. Again, 50 rockets a year. That's a big project that required high level government approval, it's not some side project that took a couple million and a few people to make. It's probably one of the single largest rocket production line in history. Pouring that much money and resources into that one project does mean that someone else 100% got the short end of the stick. Oh and the fact that it will get an entire launchpad reserved for it doesn't strike you special when the private companies are going to be fighting for a chance getting a launchpad.

You don't just blunder into this kind of projects without tons of oversight and viability assessments, but no one ever thought to think "hmmm, there's like a dozen reusable rockets coming online around the same time as our mega-factory, maybe it would be a mistake to mass produce an expandable rocket of this scale in a time where the rocket industry is being turned onto it's head" Can you imagine the 3 gorges dam, but instead of the years and years of prep work that went into it's construction, someone just randomly pointed to a spot on a map and they started building there. And then after it finished building, it's revealed that due to being built on some random spot on a river, it's will only have an lifespan of 5 years. Do you think people will just shrug and go "Oh well, sometimes you spend billion on a project only to have it fail, it happens, there's plenty of other dams being build, so the government shouldn't decide on what dams to invest heavily in and what dam wither away" No, should roll for this.

It's not like it's the only one. Somehow someone thought that it would be a good idea to develop the CZ-12, an expandable rocket, around the same time as when a dozen reusable rockets are making their maiden flight.

There always has to be some level of planning involved for anything really, be it private or government. You don't build a two dams a hundred meters from each other, you don't want to build a bridge that blocks a busy river, you don't want to build a city over prime farmland, you don't want to build a hundred new coal mines in a country that's trying to phase out coal etc etc People have gone to jail for mis-use of govenment/investor money.

I personally don't necessarily disagree with this, but it's also apparently seems to be the case that the Chinese government has decided to let state and commercial companies go about their own pursuits and see which float and which don't, with a variety of risk profiles with overlapping redundancies and inefficiencies.
It's hardly the first sector that the government has allowed to have overlapping products and varying risk profiles for the sake of caution.

This is something that's been apparent for the last few years, so unless we see a change in this strategy, I think if it bothers you, it is worthwhile to transition through the stages of grief in a healthy way.

 

[tacoburger]

Don't be ridiculous. The CZ-7, CZ-7A, and CZ-8 are basically the same rocket. The CZ-8 has two or zero side boosters. The CZ-7 has four side boosters. The CZ-7A variant and the CZ-8 have the same last stage. They launch from the same LC-2 pad. The names are just nomenclature. CZ-7/7A/8 is one base rocket in different configurations. 0/2/4 side boosters and two different upper stage configurations.

And yet you continue this stupid lie, like they can only make and launch one rocket a year. Which is a lie. Like I already told you, that single pad, LC-2, launches four rockets a year already. CZ-7/7A/8. It's the same rocket. And CZ-7 is necessary, because it is the only rocket at this point which can launch the Tianzhou resupply vehicle for the space station. Without which the station can't even operate.

And I keep telling you, it's the not easy for rocket science, even minor changes take lots of effort. By this logic, the SLS, which reuses space shuttle engines, the space shuttle's solid rocket motors, space shuttle fuel tank and other space shuttle technology, should be easy to develop right? That was the plan, reduce costs using old hardware. Somehow it's billions over budget and more then a decade delayed. Same for Falcon heavy, which is 3 F9 first stage boosters strapped together, it still took SpaceX 5 years and they admitted that it was a much harder project then they expected from reusing existing hardware.

If reusing CZ-7 hardware and tooling is so easy, why isn't CZ-8 production and launches ramping up faster?

50 launches a year is perfectly doable. Just compute the total amount of CZ-2/3/4 launches. It is within the same ballpark. Those rockets have the same diameter and use the same tooling.

Yeah, maybe in 10 years at the rate that the launch rate is slowly ramping up.

Those rockets have the same diameter and use the same tooling.

Because that's all that matters in rocket science right? Forget center of gravity, weight distribution, aerodynamics, hardpoints, you can just add boosters and change engines like it's a video game. Again, the SLS uses the same tooling and hardware as the space shuttle, it's not a guarantee it will be easier. Just look at modern aircraft designs. Even tiny little changes take massive engineering effort. Are you one of those people who go "The J-35 looks like a F-35, therefore it's a copy"

More vapor. Nonexistent launches on nonexistent rockets from 2026. The truth for ZQ-2 is three launches total. The first one was a failure. The second one was without a satellite, because no one in their right mind would risk a satellite on an unproven rocket, and the third one put satellites up. And it still doesn't have the same payload as CZ-8. Let alone CZ-7A. It can't even put payloads into GTO.

And yet it still has double the launch rate of the CZ-8 and growing. And why are do you call an existing rocket vapor? Stop moving the goalposts. If we can take developer statements as facts, like you do with the 50 CZ-8s a year, then I can take Landspace's word that they will be ramping up the launch rate of their rockets as planned.

The CZ-8 has flown three times. All successfully. It can put 6000 kg into LEO. And your precious ZQ-2 has flown three times. Two successes and one failure. It can put 4000 kg into LEO. And four CZ-7/7A/8 flew in 2022.

The CZ-8 had it's maiden flight in 2020. The ZQ-2 had it's maiden flight in 2022. Accordinfg to you, resuing CZ-7 tooling is supposed to make producing the CZ-8 easier. ZQ-2 is using brand new engines, so brand new that it's the first in the world to use methane. And I'm using the ZQ-2 as an example for all the upcoming private rockets. Again, they don't have to land and to be reused to put payloads into orbit. The TL-3 is launching this year, even if it doesn't land and reused until 2030, that's still a rocket capable of 17 tons of LEO and planned to launch several times a year.

Didn't you read what the Chief Designer said? They are setting up the pulsed production line. I would assume right now each rocket is basically assembled in a workshop.

And I though that resuing tooling from the very mature CZ-7 would be easier to scale up production. Which is it? If reusing tooling and hardware from the CZ-7 line was going to be so much easier and cut costs, why has the current production rate has been so patheic? Even brand new private rockets are scaling up faster.

For what? Legacy rockets CZ-2/3/4? Those could have easily been stockpiled. In this case construction of the launch pad, and moving to a pulsed line was clearly delayed.

Stockpiled wouldn't have accounted for the massive growth of launches from 2020 and 2023. And that's not counting the brand new rockets that have launched in the last 3 years.

What effort? The CZ-7, which flew first, is the one with the four boosters. The CZ-8 has less boosters, not more. It's simpler. It's the same rocket. Launched from the same pad. And made in the same factory. The only difference was when they put the last stage from the CZ-3 to make the CZ-7A. The first flight failed, but they got it working on the flight afterwards. And this meant when the exact same configuration was flown in the CZ-8 later of course it worked perfectly first time.

You can't just add or subtract boosters that easily and call it a day. It needs lots of wind tunnel tests, aerodynamic re-design and whatnot for even tiny changes. Again, one look at the current aerospace design industry tells you this. Just look the amount of money and work being used on passenger jets, even though they use the same genreal body design. The 737max shares the same body as the 737 family but look at the trouble that a tiny change to it's engine placement causes. I keep bringing up previous examples of rockets tried reusing old hardware instead of a clean sheet design that instead resulted in massive delays and cost overruns but you keep ignoring them.

And again, you keep harping on this, but if it's so simple to reuse tooling and factories lines, why hasn't the CZ-8 production ramped up? It it's just a slight change of the CZ-7 and the CZ-7 first launched in 2016, then it's got to have a very mature production line. But still, one launch a year and no signs of changing.

There is no need for that kind of of rocket given the current launch requirements.

And that's the key thing isn't it. Things change. 20 years ago, before the concept of satellite internet and all modern weapons plaftorm being "smart" and electronically linked together, the Faclon's 9 launch rate and payload to orbit would have been called excessive too. We have no idea what is ahead of us in 10 years, which is good, because that's the amount of time needed to get the LM-9 off the ground.

The only reasons to use a superheavy are if you either have an indivisible payload you need to put up into space, or you have to put so much upmass in orbit that it justifies the huge expense of building the superheavy and its factory. The current requirements worldwide for indivisible payloads are supposedly one flight every two years, with a max of one flight every year in the future. If you make the superheavy reusable, you would make a factory to make a single rocket which would then be idle over the duration of the program. Now I'll give you another tidbit. Mass production of a vehicle can decrease its unit cost by an order of magnitude. So would you rather make a single reusable rocket, or make ten expendable rockets. Think.

There's plenty of economical system that didn't make any sense until the techologny and hardware was put into place to facilitate them. Modern air travel that can transport billions of people across the world every year didn't happen because we planned for it. It happened because we started to build better and better passenger aircraft in ever greater numbers until the current system just sort of developed on it's own.

If you think it's fine to invest billions in the production lines needed to vastly expand CZ-8 production, despite a dozen reusable rockets coming for it in a couple of years, in the tiny off chance that all this reusable rockets all fail horrbiliy for the next 5 years, then I think it's fair to invest a few billion into a fully reusable 2 stage rocket in the chance that it might completely transform the industry like the F9 did.