China's Space Program Thread II

[by78]

High-resolution images from the launch of High-Orbit Internet Sat-02 (互联网高轨卫星02), which was carried out using a Long March 3B. This marked the 529th flight of the Long March series.

 

[tacoburger]

China's rocket development can be viewed in one lens, they get the job done, no more no less. They don't go above and beyond like SpaceX does and they certainly don't give a shit about safely or any other factors, as long as the rocket goes up, they don't care where it comes down. The closest analogy would be someone that does the bare minimum at work, I think everyone has worked with someone like that before. Someone that does their job just barely enough to not get fired, they don't give a shit about how their poor quality work will fuck over someone else in the future, or their future promotion, they just clock in to get a paycheck and that's that.

I have already expressed how I think this attitude cost China the opportunity of a century by squandering the 20 years of inactivity from NASA and Roscosmos but here's another area where I think China greatly dropped the ball just because they don't give a shit.

Ok let's talk about inland rocket and safely. You don't want to ignore safely, not just because it's a bad look and kills people, but because "necessity is the mother of invention", and if someone takes the steps needed to strive for better safely standards, they can reap unexpected benefits. So in regards to spent 1st stages falling onto populated areas there's really only two options for better safely standards, 1) Construct coastal launch sites 2) Better control your falling booster stages so that they at least don't fall on villages. 3) At least switch to a nontoxic fuel. But option 1 wasn't a viable option until a decade ago due to security concerns. And China didn't give a shit about option 3.

But guess what? China is also not a fan of option 2, even though falling 1st stages has been a thing from 1970. I was always a big spaceflight enthusiast so I was discussing this option on various forums more then a decade ago, and they concluded that maybe it's just not viable. It is a large house sized spent booster that is tumbling from the edge of space, even putting the largest aerodynamic control surfaces or parachutes would probably still result in a CEP of kilometers, not to mention the extra weight and the impact on aerodynamics that large control surfaces would have on performance. And of course nobody thought that reignition of the engines would be possible, not in a spent booster. But of course we're not rocket engineers.

And it turns out it's very very possible, China just didn't bother. SpaceX in just a few short years of development, manage to land F9 on a moving target with CEP of less then a meter, that's accuracy of a laser guided missile and that's just with grid fins. Reignition of engines to fly the booster to a new landing spot or for a soft landing is also very possible. If China had actually bothered to put any amount of effort into mitigating their falling booster problem in the decades that it has been a problem, they could have figured out to guide a falling spent booster stage with meter level percision and maybe figure out engine reignition and maneuvering and soft landing before SpaceX even existed. They just didn't bother.

That's like 80% of the way to reusable rockets right there. I don't think China could have figured out reusable rockets before SpaceX, but if they had gone this route, at least when SpaceX did land it's first Faclon 9, China could have had years of data on dealing with falling 1st stages to help with developing reusable rockets faster. As it is, China only started putting grid fins and parachutes on it's inland booster stages 5-6 years ago, no secret as to why they suddenly decided to do so after SpaceX started to land rockets weekly. Even then, boosters are still falling on villages, like it did just 2 months ago.

This "I don't give a shit" attitude extents to so many aspects. The Long March 5 1st stage having an uncontrolled fall from orbit, the 2007 ASAT test targeting a satellite in such a high orbit that the debris will take decades to clear, instead of a satellite in a lower orbit where debris will deorbit within a handful of years, the reluctance to switch to cleaner non toxic fuels even though they're the only country that's dropping spent booster stages inland.

It's even infecting the private space sector. It's pure negligence that Space pioneer can't even do a simple static fire test without a historical never before seen before in the history of rocketry fuck up and it's pure luck that they didn't kill anyone. They're not dumb, they probably just couldn't give a shit about something as banal as a static fire test. And because of that, their progress has been setback by a year.

 

[coolgod]

China's rocket development can be viewed in one lens, they get the job done, no more no less. They don't go above and beyond like SpaceX does and they certainly don't give a shit about safely or any other factors, as long as the rocket goes up, they don't care where it comes down. The closest analogy would be someone that does the bare minimum at work, I think everyone has worked with someone like that before. Someone that does their job just barely enough to not get fired, they don't give a shit about how their poor quality work will fuck over someone else in the future, or their future promotion, they just clock in to get a paycheck and that's that.

I have already expressed how I think this attitude cost China the opportunity of a century by squandering the 20 years of inactivity from NASA and Roscosmos but here's another area where I think China greatly dropped the ball just because they don't give a shit.

Ok let's talk about inland rocket and safely. You don't want to ignore safely, not just because it's a bad look and kills people, but because "necessity is the mother of invention", and if someone takes the steps needed to strive for better safely standards, they can reap unexpected benefits. So in regards to spent 1st stages falling onto populated areas there's really only two options for better safely standards, 1) Construct coastal launch sites 2) Better control your falling booster stages so that they at least don't fall on villages. 3) At least switch to a nontoxic fuel. But option 1 wasn't a viable option until a decade ago due to security concerns. And China didn't give a shit about option 3.

But guess what? China is also not a fan of option 2, even though falling 1st stages has been a thing from 1970. I was always a big spaceflight enthusiast so I was discussing this option on various forums more then a decade ago, and they concluded that maybe it's just not viable. It is a large house sized spent booster that is tumbling from the edge of space, even putting the largest aerodynamic control surfaces or parachutes would probably still result in a CEP of kilometers, not to mention the extra weight and the impact on aerodynamics that large control surfaces would have on performance. And of course nobody thought that reignition of the engines would be possible, not in a spent booster. But of course we're not rocket engineers.

And it turns out it's very very possible, China just didn't bother. SpaceX in just a few short years of development, manage to land F9 on a moving target with CEP of less then a meter, that's accuracy of a laser guided missile and that's just with grid fins. Reignition of engines to fly the booster to a new landing spot or for a soft landing is also very possible. If China had actually bothered to put any amount of effort into mitigating their falling booster problem in the decades that it has been a problem, they could have figured out to guide a falling spent booster stage with meter level percision and maybe figure out engine reignition and maneuvering and soft landing before SpaceX even existed. They just didn't bother.

That's like 80% of the way to reusable rockets right there. I don't think China could have figured out reusable rockets before SpaceX, but if they had gone this route, at least when SpaceX did land it's first Faclon 9, China could have had years of data on dealing with falling 1st stages to help with developing reusable rockets faster. As it is, China only started putting grid fins and parachutes on it's inland booster stages 5-6 years ago, no secret as to why they suddenly decided to do so after SpaceX started to land rockets weekly. Even then, boosters are still falling on villages, like it did just 2 months ago.

This "I don't give a shit" attitude extents to so many aspects. The Long March 5 1st stage having an uncontrolled fall from orbit, the 2007 ASAT test targeting a satellite in such a high orbit that the debris will take decades to clear, instead of a satellite in a lower orbit where debris will deorbit within a handful of years, the reluctance to switch to cleaner non toxic fuels even though they're the only country that's dropping spent booster stages inland.

It's even infecting the private space sector. It's pure negligence that Space pioneer can't even do a simple static fire test without a historical never before seen before in the history of rocketry fuck up and it's pure luck that they didn't kill anyone. They're not dumb, they probably just couldn't give a shit about something as banal as a static fire test. And because of that, their progress has been setback by a year.

Have you tried filing your complaints with the Chinese government, relevant space agencies and companies instead of posting it on SDF?

 

[didklmyself]

He just completed his one month sentence.
@tacoburger chasing the perma?

 

[Blitzo]

China's rocket development can be viewed in one lens, they get the job done, no more no less. They don't go above and beyond like SpaceX does and they certainly don't give a shit about safely or any other factors, as long as the rocket goes up, they don't care where it comes down. The closest analogy would be someone that does the bare minimum at work, I think everyone has worked with someone like that before. Someone that does their job just barely enough to not get fired, they don't give a shit about how their poor quality work will fuck over someone else in the future, or their future promotion, they just clock in to get a paycheck and that's that.

I have already expressed how I think this attitude cost China the opportunity of a century by squandering the 20 years of inactivity from NASA and Roscosmos but here's another area where I think China greatly dropped the ball just because they don't give a shit.

Ok let's talk about inland rocket and safely. You don't want to ignore safely, not just because it's a bad look and kills people, but because "necessity is the mother of invention", and if someone takes the steps needed to strive for better safely standards, they can reap unexpected benefits. So in regards to spent 1st stages falling onto populated areas there's really only two options for better safely standards, 1) Construct coastal launch sites 2) Better control your falling booster stages so that they at least don't fall on villages. 3) At least switch to a nontoxic fuel. But option 1 wasn't a viable option until a decade ago due to security concerns. And China didn't give a shit about option 3.

But guess what? China is also not a fan of option 2, even though falling 1st stages has been a thing from 1970. I was always a big spaceflight enthusiast so I was discussing this option on various forums more then a decade ago, and they concluded that maybe it's just not viable. It is a large house sized spent booster that is tumbling from the edge of space, even putting the largest aerodynamic control surfaces or parachutes would probably still result in a CEP of kilometers, not to mention the extra weight and the impact on aerodynamics that large control surfaces would have on performance. And of course nobody thought that reignition of the engines would be possible, not in a spent booster. But of course we're not rocket engineers.

And it turns out it's very very possible, China just didn't bother. SpaceX in just a few short years of development, manage to land F9 on a moving target with CEP of less then a meter, that's accuracy of a laser guided missile and that's just with grid fins. Reignition of engines to fly the booster to a new landing spot or for a soft landing is also very possible. If China had actually bothered to put any amount of effort into mitigating their falling booster problem in the decades that it has been a problem, they could have figured out to guide a falling spent booster stage with meter level percision and maybe figure out engine reignition and maneuvering and soft landing before SpaceX even existed. They just didn't bother.

That's like 80% of the way to reusable rockets right there. I don't think China could have figured out reusable rockets before SpaceX, but if they had gone this route, at least when SpaceX did land it's first Faclon 9, China could have had years of data on dealing with falling 1st stages to help with developing reusable rockets faster. As it is, China only started putting grid fins and parachutes on it's inland booster stages 5-6 years ago, no secret as to why they suddenly decided to do so after SpaceX started to land rockets weekly. Even then, boosters are still falling on villages, like it did just 2 months ago.

This "I don't give a shit" attitude extents to so many aspects. The Long March 5 1st stage having an uncontrolled fall from orbit, the 2007 ASAT test targeting a satellite in such a high orbit that the debris will take decades to clear, instead of a satellite in a lower orbit where debris will deorbit within a handful of years, the reluctance to switch to cleaner non toxic fuels even though they're the only country that's dropping spent booster stages inland.

It's even infecting the private space sector. It's pure negligence that Space pioneer can't even do a simple static fire test without a historical never before seen before in the history of rocketry fuck up and it's pure luck that they didn't kill anyone. They're not dumb, they probably just couldn't give a shit about something as banal as a static fire test. And because of that, their progress has been setback by a year.

You've barely returned and you're already back to using this thread as your personal location for venting your frustrations.

You've been repeatedly warned and temporarily banned for this, and now this.

Permanent ban.

 

[escobar]

The reusable space plane with two protruding solar panels or antenna objects

 

[Engineer]

China's rocket development can be viewed in one lens, they get the job done, no more no less. They don't go above and beyond like SpaceX does and they certainly don't give a shit about safely or any other factors, as long as the rocket goes up, they don't care where it comes down. The closest analogy would be someone that does the bare minimum at work, I think everyone has worked with someone like that before. Someone that does their job just barely enough to not get fired, they don't give a shit about how their poor quality work will fuck over someone else in the future, or their future promotion, they just clock in to get a paycheck and that's that.

I have already expressed how I think this attitude cost China the opportunity of a century by squandering the 20 years of inactivity from NASA and Roscosmos but here's another area where I think China greatly dropped the ball just because they don't give a shit.

Ok let's talk about inland rocket and safely. You don't want to ignore safely, not just because it's a bad look and kills people, but because "necessity is the mother of invention", and if someone takes the steps needed to strive for better safely standards, they can reap unexpected benefits. So in regards to spent 1st stages falling onto populated areas there's really only two options for better safely standards, 1) Construct coastal launch sites 2) Better control your falling booster stages so that they at least don't fall on villages. 3) At least switch to a nontoxic fuel. But option 1 wasn't a viable option until a decade ago due to security concerns. And China didn't give a shit about option 3.

But guess what? China is also not a fan of option 2, even though falling 1st stages has been a thing from 1970. I was always a big spaceflight enthusiast so I was discussing this option on various forums more then a decade ago, and they concluded that maybe it's just not viable. It is a large house sized spent booster that is tumbling from the edge of space, even putting the largest aerodynamic control surfaces or parachutes would probably still result in a CEP of kilometers, not to mention the extra weight and the impact on aerodynamics that large control surfaces would have on performance. And of course nobody thought that reignition of the engines would be possible, not in a spent booster. But of course we're not rocket engineers.

And it turns out it's very very possible, China just didn't bother. SpaceX in just a few short years of development, manage to land F9 on a moving target with CEP of less then a meter, that's accuracy of a laser guided missile and that's just with grid fins. Reignition of engines to fly the booster to a new landing spot or for a soft landing is also very possible. If China had actually bothered to put any amount of effort into mitigating their falling booster problem in the decades that it has been a problem, they could have figured out to guide a falling spent booster stage with meter level percision and maybe figure out engine reignition and maneuvering and soft landing before SpaceX even existed. They just didn't bother.

That's like 80% of the way to reusable rockets right there. I don't think China could have figured out reusable rockets before SpaceX, but if they had gone this route, at least when SpaceX did land it's first Faclon 9, China could have had years of data on dealing with falling 1st stages to help with developing reusable rockets faster. As it is, China only started putting grid fins and parachutes on it's inland booster stages 5-6 years ago, no secret as to why they suddenly decided to do so after SpaceX started to land rockets weekly. Even then, boosters are still falling on villages, like it did just 2 months ago.

This "I don't give a shit" attitude extents to so many aspects. The Long March 5 1st stage having an uncontrolled fall from orbit, the 2007 ASAT test targeting a satellite in such a high orbit that the debris will take decades to clear, instead of a satellite in a lower orbit where debris will deorbit within a handful of years, the reluctance to switch to cleaner non toxic fuels even though they're the only country that's dropping spent booster stages inland.

It's even infecting the private space sector. It's pure negligence that Space pioneer can't even do a simple static fire test without a historical never before seen before in the history of rocketry fuck up and it's pure luck that they didn't kill anyone. They're not dumb, they probably just couldn't give a shit about something as banal as a static fire test. And because of that, their progress has been setback by a year.

Or a much simpler conclusion is that hyperbolic rockets are simply better and that's why China is sticking with them for now. Have you thought about that? Given that inland launch sites are also the only ones capable of handling hyperbolic, that would also explain why China is still using inland launch sites.

It's a much simpler explanation than your mental gymnastics of China hating progress.

 

[Engineer]

Oh, remember back in late April of 2021 when Tianhe core module was launched, western propaganda kicked up a huge fuss about China's falling booster as well?

It turned out just a month earlier, the West threw out a 2.6 tons battery pack from the ISS (see sources for the photo). While China's booster came back to Earth within ten days, that battery pack from ISS stayed in orbit for three years! At first they thought it was going to land in the Atlantic, then there was a fear it was going to fall on Germany, finally a piece of it landed in someone's house. Sources

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. In short, the West had no fricking clue where it was going to end up, but had the audacity to tell everyone that it was harmless while China's boosters were dangerous.

So whatever bad shit they accuse China of doing, they themselves do it worse. The West are not leaders. So people, stop praising SpaceX. Just because it does something that doesn't mean China should follow.

 

[by78]

Beijing i-Space (also known as Interstellar Glory, Space Honor, Beijing Interstellar Glory Space Technology, StarCraft Glory, Interplanetary Glory, Interplanetary Glory Space Technology, so on and on and on) has successfully carried out a full-system hot run of its 100-ton reusable LOX/methane JD-2 engine intended for the company's Hyperbola-3 rocket.

Beijing i-Space has successfully carried out an 8th full-system hot run of its 100-ton reusable LOX/methane JD-2 engine intended for the company's Hyperbola-3 rocket. This latest test run lasted 200 seconds, the maximum operation duration expected during launches.

 

[gpt]

Oh, remember back in late April of 2021 when Tianhe core module was launched, western propaganda kicked up a huge fuss about China's falling booster as well?

It turned out just a month earlier, the West threw out a 2.6 tons battery pack from the ISS (see sources for the photo). While China's booster came back to Earth within ten days, that battery pack from ISS stayed in orbit for three years! At first they thought it was going to land in the Atlantic, then there was a fear it was going to fall on Germany, finally a piece of it landed in someone's house. Sources

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. In short, the West had no fricking clue where it was going to end up, but had the audacity to tell everyone that it was harmless while China's boosters were dangerous.

So whatever bad shit they accuse China of doing, they themselves do it worse. The West are not leaders. So people, stop praising SpaceX. Just because it does something that doesn't mean China should follow.

In all fairness both cases were pretty bad. In the case of the CZ5B it wasn't a 'failed' booster as much as it was the fact that the core stage reaches orbital velocity which then reenters in an uncontrolled manner, one of the largest uncontrolled reentries (after Skylab, Skylab II's Saturn V stage, Salyut and Columbia). Two of the four cores got pretty close to civilization.



The necessary modifications for proper deorbiting process would requires an RCS system or dedicated deorbital motors.

Another possible solution is launching into an elliptical orbit with a very low suborbital perigee that's well within the atmosphere (sth like 30 km) so that the core stage can easily and predictably deorbit into the ocean and the spacecraft after separation can then circularize the orbit to LEO from there. But this mission profile would decrease performance.