Actually, you could put it another way and it would be the same: Compared to Starship, I’m more focused on Falcon 9. it’s precisely because Starship can’t do anything right now in areas like conventional space launches or deep space missions that I’m not concerned with it at all. What I care about is whether the design problems that exist in Starship have been solved in the CZ-9. I don’t care whether Starship succeeds or not.
Global future space architecture thread
- Thread starter BoraTas
- Start date
Engineer
Major
Too many idiots on this thread have their head so far up Elon's ass on top of being totally clueless on engineering. All I ever read on this thread regarding China's rocketry is "China should do Y because SpaceX did it". What makes doing Y so great? No answer. SpaceX isn't some role model to be followed but the exact opposite. It illustrates why US fails at engineering — people who are not engineers making critical engineering decisions based on vibes instead of letting engineers make those decisions objectively.
The fact that SpaceX, one single private company, launches >90% all payload into space should tell you exactly why it is so great.
Tell that to CNSA.
Last edited:
Remember that Tesla used to sell over 80% of all electric vehicles in the USA.
Yet look at the situation now. And how their market share continues to decline because others are producing better cars.
And I'll give you an example of an analogous architectural design flaw in Tesla cars.
Tesla remains wedded to the idea that self-driving cars should be camera-only systems, because humans drive with only eyeballs.
But LIDARs have dropped in price so much, that they are now less than $138. At that price, you might as well add a LIDAR which can "see" further and better than a human eyeball or camera. That matters today, just from a safety systems perspective. So other companies have added LIDARs, whilst Tesla hasn't.
Last edited:
Yes, I actually do expect China to catch up eventually like in EV. But that requires acknowledging that China's space launch industry is years behind SpaceX for now.
@nativechicken
You need to learn to make coherent arguments in English instead of writing AI-translated word diarrhea. Repeating "I’ve said it many times", "you don't get it", "you will never understand why", "do you understand now?" ad nauseam is not an argument.
And have some intellectual integrity please.
"You call the Long March 9 a “PPT rocket,” but in reality, Starship’s current state isn’t much better than a PowerPoint presentation." --One has been flight tested 10 times (with engine and demonstrator tests before that) and the other is actually a PPT slide.
"As an old Chinese saying goes: “欲速则不达” (More haste, less speed)." --This is Jai Hind-grade copium.
The bottom line is that SpaceX's two major projects, the Falcon 9 and the Starship, are both well-thought out, revoluntary designs that are far ahead of their contemporaries and lead to imitations--the most sincere form of flattery. Saying Starship is limited in the payload it can deploy is intellectually dishonest because the same is true for every rocket. Saying future on-paper Chinese design can do X better is cope.
You need to learn to make coherent arguments in English instead of writing AI-translated word diarrhea. Repeating "I’ve said it many times", "you don't get it", "you will never understand why", "do you understand now?" ad nauseam is not an argument.
And have some intellectual integrity please.
"You call the Long March 9 a “PPT rocket,” but in reality, Starship’s current state isn’t much better than a PowerPoint presentation." --One has been flight tested 10 times (with engine and demonstrator tests before that) and the other is actually a PPT slide.
"As an old Chinese saying goes: “欲速则不达” (More haste, less speed)." --This is Jai Hind-grade copium.
The bottom line is that SpaceX's two major projects, the Falcon 9 and the Starship, are both well-thought out, revoluntary designs that are far ahead of their contemporaries and lead to imitations--the most sincere form of flattery. Saying Starship is limited in the payload it can deploy is intellectually dishonest because the same is true for every rocket. Saying future on-paper Chinese design can do X better is cope.
Engineer
Major
Then how come SpaceX is not great?
So? Models are just ideas and ideas are a dime for a dozen. Your reply illustrates my criticism of this thread so clearly — a whole lot of "China should do Y because SpaceX did it", not a single answer on why idea Y is sound and not stupid.
Let's see: >90% of all payload to orbit. Thousands of starlink satellites operational. Singlehandedly maintained the US' only way to send astronauts into space/ISS. A side project (Falcon Heavy) delivers more payload to orbit than any Chinese rocket to date. World's first full-flow stage combustion methalox engine, that is further refined across three iterations and mass produced. Hundreds of successful booster landings when zero other company or nations have even done one.
If you think that is not great, the issue is with you.
The fact that ideas are converging to SpaceX ideas tell you that these are good ideas.
SpaceX's approaches are sound because they demonstratably result in lower cost per kg to orbit and higher launch cadence. This is critical to builting large space infrastructures like LEO constellations.
Engineer
Major
I am not interested in reading excuses. I am asking you why SpaceX isn't great in reality despite your claim otherwise. SpaceX being the better American companies doesn't make it great. SpaceX isn't the only one that can launch human into space. Most of SpaceX's payloads are just Starlink satellites, not unique payloads.
In other words, no proof whatsoever how these are actually sound ideas, let alone good ones, for China.
Last edited:
He has never seen the early Chinese evolution diagrams from large launch vehicles to the heavy-lift launch vehicle configuration, which were published before the Heavy Falcon configuration was revealed. In the development of the Long March 9, 300 to 400 different configuration combinations were explored…
These diagrams actually include some of the intermediate designs between the CZ-5DY and the CZ-10.