It's now in GTO , would have it's final position in GEO
China's Space Program Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
You can't extrapolate it like that from F9. They are different classes of rockets. That is like saying because F9 is able to carry 23 tons to leo with 775 tons power at 1st stage, then CZ-9 should be able to carry 180 tons to leo with 6000 tons of power at 1st stage. The amount of power required on the 1st stage doesn't scale linearly to the payload they launch. The magnitude of difference in the 1st stage power increases as the payload class increases. But when the empty booster is coming down the magnitude of weight difference between the F9 empty booster and the CZ-9 empty booster will be smaller than the magnitude of difference between the power required at launch.
The 2017 version of CZ9 has a reuse plan.
Using 8 sets of engine units for power, each set of engine units consists of one YF130 and two YF100. CZ9 core stage has 4 sets, with 1 set for each booster. Each group of engines has a thrust of approximately 7340KN. CZ9 total thrust
Reaching 6000t
The reusable configuration of CZ6X (2xYF100+2xYF115) is actually for technical verification of reusing CZ9 for this version (someone asked CZ6X booth at the 2018 Zhuhai Airshow about the small rocket capacity, what is the significance of this? The reply is only for technical verification).
At present, it is generally certain that this reused version of CZ9 has lost to the 2021 version of CZ9 in the competition. However, currently, the research literature on the process details of heavy launch vehicles in China is mainly based on the old version (2016-2017 version CZ9).
The recovery mass of the first stage of the CZ9 rocket is approximately 110-130 tons. YF130 is definitely not useful because it requires a 25% throttle, making it very difficult to achieve for heavy-duty engines.
At present, YF100 is performing deep throttling at 10:1 and 5:1. The 10:1 throttling is actually prepared for CZ8R, and the 5:1 throttling is actually prepared for the 2017 version of the reused CZ9 booster. Because the dry mass of CZ9's booster is about 50t, the recovered mass of CZ8R is about 30t+.
At present, the 3:1 throttling prototype of YF100 has been produced. The 10:1 deep transformation demand proposed by YF100 in 2014.
China has been conducting pre research on methane rocket power for over 20 years, starting with the 200t class. This engine was originally designed to be paired with a Chinese version of a rocket aircraft, which is a VTHL configuration of a reusable launch vehicle. The appearance of this vehicle is XS-1 (a work abandoned by Boeing in 2020), and it is called AT-1B (Aotian 1) in China. AT-1B has flown twice. Currently, two YF100 units are being used, and in the future, three 80t methane powered units will be replaced (a modification of YF-77).
The power requirement is 240 tons, with a takeoff mass of approximately 160-180 tons, equipped with Level 2, and a carrying capacity of approximately LEO2-4 tons
There is also an enlarged version, which uses a 200t methane engine.
This is China's truly legitimate reusable launch vehicle program (VTHL, launched in 2010). The current batch of highly imitated Falcon 9 rockets are all projects that were later cut in (VTVL, launched in 2015).
SpaceX started StarShip because the technical difficulty of Falcon 9/Heavy Falcon was too low, and it only had a time advantage.
His advantage lies in the fact that the Merlin 1 weighs tens of tons, while rocket engines from other countries generally have a thrust of 100-200 tons or more. The mass of the first stage rocket is only 20-30t. Unable to solve deep transformation thrust (throttling). Unable to achieve vertical rocket landing. To recycle rockets, the first step is to solve the problem of the engine. This engine requires 10 years of development to succeed, and SpaceX Merlin developed it in 2001. The first successful flight of Falcon 9 was in 2015, which took 15 years to achieve. It's not because VTVL is much more difficult (much easier than VTHL). It's just that the power system needs time to mature.
So SpaceX needs to maintain technological barriers and facilitate financing in order to develop StarShip and Raptor engines. However, for him, the development of launch vehicles at this level is still too difficult, and many technologies are not available. That's why it's made into its current state. Nowadays, many of the technical difficulties of this Starship are smaller than those of traditional heavy launch vehicles. Just one heavy launch stage separation, the space cold separation (mechanical separation) of a 100 ton payload, and the bundling technology of large boosters for heavy rockets are not technologies that SpaceX can solve in the short term. He mainly overshadowed many issues with rockets by reusing the concept of rockets. After removing the concept of reusing rockets, the technical foundation of this rocket became a joke, which is a regression in the application of aerospace technology (compared to Saturn 5 and SLS). Because the payload deployment of ultra large rockets is itself a technical challenge for heavy transportation. However, Starship has clearly not seriously considered this issue. His various application ideas are actually integrated as a whole with the secondary engine, storage tank, and payload compartment to provide external services (this detail only shows the shortcomings of his technology)
StarShip is only a semi-finished rocket, it is a development concept for customized or specialized rockets.
SLS/CZ9 is a general-purpose rocket. Technically customized/specialized rockets have lower technical difficulty compared to general-purpose rockets. In addition, StarShip does not have the true ability to release oversized and overweight loads for heavy transportation. To put it simply, he is only half a heavy carrier rocket, and StarShip has at least 6-10 years left for technological improvement to adapt to general rocket missions. Currently, SpaceX basically does not have time to do this before 2030, and HLS and StarLink missions have already taken up its time. Musk also needs to demonstrate Mars missions, so there is no time for warehouse improvements.
By then, the reusable version of CZ9 will also be on the rise.
Musk's Mars colonization mission is a joke. The Mars base is a massive system engineering project, and the United States has now lost the ability of more than 100000 technical personnel to collaborate on technology development (Saturn 5 is a 20-300000 technology collaboration. 20000 suppliers). Even if SpaceX solves the transportation capacity of StarShip, the United States cannot achieve large-scale extraterrestrial space infrastructure projects. Before departure, it requires technical expertise of 100000 personnel to carry out a 10-20 year plan in order to organize successful actions.
SpaceX currently only has over 10000 people, with over 60% still in Spanish (Latin American blue collar). What can it build? Providing them with one million tons of building materials on Earth may not necessarily lead to the construction of cities of any size, let alone Mars.
The CZ9 will make its first flight from 2030 to 2035, and its widespread use will be from 2045 to 2050 (lunar base, manned Mars, space solar power plant). This rhythm is in line with the development pace of the aerospace industry. The United States will only consume its space advantage faster if it engages in reckless activities.
To be clear, I do not particularly view Mars/interplanetary missions as being that important or relevant for super heavy launchers and the pursuit of first stage reusability and launch rate.
That goes for both Starship and CZ-9 and SLS.
In fact, I think pursuing any of those rockets for the pursuit of serious interplanetary missions as a primary goal is probably a bit silly. Instead, I think that the pursuit of reusable first stage super heavies is better positioned by prioritizing them for launching large payloads to earth orbit at high rates.
If SpaceX wants to actually work on using Starship for mars missions to pursue human colonization, then they can do so, but what is more important is that they (and the US government) have the ability to shift gears and utilize Starship (or rather, Super Heavy the first stage of the rocket) to enable large payload launches for earth orbit.
In relation to CZ-9 for China, and for other spacefaring nations, the question becomes entirely one of time -- i.e.: what is the amount of time between Starship (or rather, Super Heavy) being able to do consistent reusable launches and when CZ-9/XYZ other heavy or super heavy rocket in doing consistent reusable launches, and how big will the gap in tonnage in orbit be before it starts to reduce, or does the first mover advantage give SpaceX and the US an unassailable advantage that is unable to be challenged for multiple decades.
For example, if we entertain the idea of CZ-9 achieving widespread use by 2045 (which I assume you mean in a resuable form with high frequency launches), the question becomes one of when will Starship/Super Heavy achieve reusable launches with high frequency launches itself? Will it be the early 2030s, or even late 2020s? That is the kind of gap I am talking about in terms of payload to orbit.
The reason why CZ9 needs to be reused is because in the deepening research of key technologies of CZ9 (2015), it was proposed that CZ9 cannot be a single target rocket (it cannot be made into a dedicated moon landing rocket similar to Saturn 5). The CZ9 must be a general-purpose rocket (series) that can adapt to various space missions. This includes several future large-scale space missions, including but not limited to lunar bases, manned Mars (deep space missions), space solar power plants (synchronous orbit 20000 tons, 10km length spacecraft), space service facilities, etc. (specific details are unknown, and in the future, it may include a ladder with a height of 120000 km and a height of 6000t). The background research on the reuse of CZ9 is that space power plants require 100-300 launches and construction needs to be completed within 2 years.
Considering the R&D and reliability growth cycle of technology, 20-30 years is normal (30 years refers to 2015-2045). In fact, StarShip will not be short either. A fully functional startup is expected to appear as soon as 2030-2035 (with efficient low orbit carrying capacity and heavy cargo throwing capacity. Competitor CZ9 is a rocket with efficient low orbit and high orbit carrying capacity). Actually, there is only a gap of about 10 years between them.
However, Starship's approach is very biased, and these unconventional designs will only have negative effects on the application. Because of the complete system of aerospace. It is composed of multiple links, divided into 5 links according to China, and the transportation system is only a part of it. The water in a barrel is determined by the shortest wooden board. Under the premise of low efficiency in the four supporting systems, only high rocket capabilities can be achieved while improving the efficiency of the remaining systems, which is something that American society cannot achieve at the current stage. Therefore, the progress of SpaceX actually does not contribute much to the overall space capabilities of the United States.
Starship is a customized/specialized rocket concept. Its first round of customization was Starlink, and in the short term, except for Starlink's satellites, all other satellites (except for micro satellites) cannot be launched. The Starship's cargo version has two improved technical routes for cargo warehouses, one of which is relatively feasible, with a sliding hatch, which can probably be used to launch Falcon 9 and the standard satellites carried by Heavy Falcon (actually not exceeding 20t level), It is estimated that another type of clam shaped cargo door may be visible before 2030 (which is estimated to only be available after 2035), with a traditional satellite or spacecraft specification of 50-80t payload. Of course, Starship V2/V3 can do more for high-density loads such as oil loading. But is it useful?
Space assembly based on intelligent robots may not appear until at least 20 years later.
To be honest, the existence of Starship will mainly rely on the launch market of Starlink in the next 10-15 years. It would be good if other government and commercial institutions could purchase a small amount of launches.
You said Starship can quickly enhance the Earth's orbit with large payloads. That's an illusion. By 2030, Starship's ability to deliver Falcon 9/Heavy Falcon payload (20t standard space single payload) would be a victory. By 2035, it would be possible to develop a clam type cargo warehouse, which would give Starship more than half of the SLS2's throwing ability (clam type cargo warehouses have many limitations). The release capacity of CZ9's space super large payload, especially in low orbit, is approximately 1.5-3 times stronger than Starship, and in high orbit it is at least 0.5 times stronger than SLS2.
The small payload (bricks, oil) used by Starship to transport high-density goods can only be reflected in its strong transportation capacity.
The cement ground for rocket landing is a flat surface with a hardness of 11 according to strength. The soil on the surface of the moon has a surface hardness of approximately 6. And how much stronger is the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon? Forum moderators on NSF have told SpaceX enthusiasts that Starship HLS currently lacks hovering obstacle avoidance capability, which is actually a standard feature for all high-performance extraterrestrial landing systems. Can you give it a try on Earth, on the Moon and Mars, in environments without pre leveled hard landing sites and high-precision navigation support? Why is NASA in the United States doomed? It is this thing (knowledge), and in the 1970s, the necessity of it could not be disputed. But now, on the contrary, the administrative faction in NASA doesn't see this as a problem. The budget is the big deal, and the technical faction in NASA is using their actions to support the Blue Moon.
By 2035, at least 100000 low Earth orbit satellites in near Earth space will be able to board several large space stations. The low cost of Musk's Starship is only an internal calculation. This price is too high for the US Internal Revenue Service to calculate, otherwise Musk would be suspicious of paying corporate income tax. The actual launch cost of Starship is much higher. So besides the military having certain needs, there is actually nothing that can be done in low Earth orbit.
China started the construction of space solar power stations from 2045 to 2050, and 2035 is the demo version of space solar power stations (more than one CZ9)
The key is that the more successful SpaceX is, the more distorted the development of space in the United States will be, because commercial market behavior will suppress seemingly unprofitable technological routes. NASA is also attempting to abandon its guidance on the technology roadmap and introduce a so-called free competition mechanism, which will only downgrade the US space technology roadmap from comprehensive to one-sided. Can it be the success of American space that the United States went from being a decathlon Grand Slam athlete to becoming a minority of individual champions?
The advantage of SpaceX's in orbit quality is only the advantage of individual products. It is a massive application of a series of homogeneous satellites. This so-called advantage is meaningless. If SpaceX can spend money to allow other peers to use this massive satellite demand advantage to launch satellites, allowing multiple launchers to mature at the same time, this would be meaningful for the United States aerospace industry. But would Musk be so foolish? But what about China? At present, China's launch plan for 30000 satellites is provided to 10 enterprises, each with approximately 30 launches, which is enough to enable the reuse of rocket technology to mature and achieve low-cost transportation. China can cultivate more than 10 launch enterprises, while the United States has a free economy mentality, which can cultivate a few SpaceX, and capital will only be scared by SpaceX's success. SpaceX has few competitors who can finance the launch of large low orbit satellite constellations, and capital dare not invest! Causing the technological roadmap of competitors to gradually disappear or not grow significantly. Can't you tell from the lessons of XS-1 failure? Boeing's failure destroyed the entire VTHL reuse technology route in the United States. And China's development has continued, starting a new round of technological iteration. There are currently two development routes for reusable carrier technology in China, and by 2035, the technology route for HTHL will also mature (so that all three technology routes for reusable carrier spacecraft have been developed). The United States was deceived by SpaceX to develop VTVL. HTHL is estimated to be successful by 2040-2050 (single stage Skytower rocket). Do you think that transporting a pile of brick satellites and oil and gas to near orbit (this is the payload, low value payload, which is the real weakness of Starship) can help the United States maintain its leading position in space by 2045? You can ask experts from NASA and the US Space Force if they dare to bet. They just said a few days ago that China can challenge US space by 2045. I'll tell you, the problems that senior American aerospace experts see are similar to mine.
by78
General
I forgot to cover this presentation slide from earlier this month.
Apparently, Zhongke/CAS Space has successfully completed a hopping/VTVL test, which achieved an altitude of 1000 meters, with the test vehicle landing on a barge at sea (see part circled in red below). Next, a sub-orbital (100km) hopping/VTVL test is planned for this year.
It's getting hard to track these developments, but I think so far six startups have successfully completed VTVL tests: DeepBlue, Galactic Energy, iSpace, LandSpace, ExSpace, and Zhongke.
Apparently, Zhongke/CAS Space has successfully completed a hopping/VTVL test, which achieved an altitude of 1000 meters, with the test vehicle landing on a barge at sea (see part circled in red below). Next, a sub-orbital (100km) hopping/VTVL test is planned for this year.
It's getting hard to track these developments, but I think so far six startups have successfully completed VTVL tests: DeepBlue, Galactic Energy, iSpace, LandSpace, ExSpace, and Zhongke.