NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos

Tomboy said:

China still has zero reusable launch vehicle and does not have any equivalent engine to the Raptor.

Click to expand...

China have more powerful Rocket Engines than Raptor like YF-130/YF-215 from National space agency. all these rocket engines successfully completed multiple fire test.. the problem is, they don't have designated rockets for these engines yet. so you don't see serial production.

YF-130 is 500t class heavy rocket engine.

Landspace 200t level FFSC Methane-Lox BF-20 Engine completed technical design last year. they have finished upgrading the test bed last week.. first full scale fire test coming soon.

there are two more Raptor class Engines coming from private companies.

Tomboy said:

That again mostly comes down to good project management. LM-10 is not technologically advanced as it was specifically meant to be a fast and safe option. Also, as LM-10 has yet to flown I think you are getting a bit ahead don't you think? What are you even trying to agrue, that somehow Chinese launch vehicles are more advanced technologically? That just ain't true.

Click to expand...

Good project management is the understanding if you spend all your money on one part of the project, you'll end up arguing on the internet about how advanced your rocket is while the other guy walks on the moon.

LM-10 hasn't flown yet, no, and Starship hasn't made orbit yet neither, shall we discuss Falcon 9 vs Long March 5 on purely technical basis?

sunnymaxi said:

China havew powerful Rocket Engines than Raptor like YF-130/YF-215 from National space agency. all these rocket engines successfully completed multiple fire test.. the problem is, they don't have designated rockets for these engines yet. so you don't see serial production.. YF-130 is 500t class heavy rocket engine.

Landspace 200t level FFSC Methane-Lox BF-20 Engine completed technical design last year. they have finished upgrading the test bed last week.. first full scale fire test coming soon.

Click to expand...

Anyways point still stand that current in service American launch vehicle is more advanced. Also it's unfair to compare YF-130 to the Raptor as the former is a dual nozzle engine sharing a single turbopump, completely different class of engines. More thrust alone does not automatically mean more advanced, Raptor is the first flight flown full flow staged combustion cycle engine with ridiculously high TWR ratio.

Anyhow equivalent engines to the Raptor on the Chinese side are either still on paper or in early prototype testing.

iewgnem said:

LM-10 hasn't flown yet, no, and Starship hasn't made orbit yet neither, shall we discuss Falcon 9 vs Long March 5 on purely technical basis?

Click to expand...

Sure, I really want to see how LM-5 is more advanced. F9 is partially reusable, has higher payload fraction even when reusable and has higher cumulative success rate. Also, I'm pretty sure F9 launch costs are also lower although i don't think there are any public info on LM-5 launch cost.

Tomboy said:

Anyways point still stand that current in service American launch vehicle is more advanced. Also it's unfair to compare YF-130 to the Raptor as the former is a dual nozzle engine sharing a single turbopump, completely different class of engines. More thrust alone does not automatically mean more advanced, Raptor is the first flight flown full flow staged combustion cycle engine with ridiculously high TWR ratio.

Anyhow equivalent engines to the Raptor on the Chinese side are either still on paper or in early prototype testing.

Click to expand...

no one denying. SpaceX is way ahead. but some people thinks, China will forever stuck with these tiny rockets. LOOL

just visit semi thread, Next year 5nm line coming online with all Non-American tools.. we have done this just in 5 years. semiconductor tools is way way more complex and precise than these rockets.

give us only 2 years.. i know pretty well, what's happening on the ground. China's rocket industry is in transitional phase, from tiny rockets to heavy duty rockets. multiple heavy duty launchers coming online in next 18-24 months.

Tomboy said:

Anyways point still stand that current in service American launch vehicle is more advanced. Also it's unfair to compare YF-130 to the Raptor as the former is a dual nozzle engine sharing a single turbopump, completely different class of engines. More thrust alone does not automatically mean more advanced, Raptor is the first flight flown full flow staged combustion cycle engine with ridiculously high TWR ratio.

Anyhow equivalent engines to the Raptor on the Chinese side are either still on paper or in early prototype testing.

Sure, I really want to see how LM-5 is more advanced. F9 is partially reusable, has higher payload fraction even when reusable and has higher cumulative success rate. Also, I'm pretty sure F9 launch costs are also lower although i don't think there are any public info on LM-5 launch cost.

Click to expand...

US to date does not have any equivalent engine planned or built that can match Soviet RD-270 single chamber 600 ton full flow staged combustion, do you consider the 1965 Soviet Union to be more advanced than either US at that time or today? More thrust certainly doesn't mean more advanced, being able to do missions no other engine or rocket can do make something more advanced.

Maximizing singular metric at the expense of another, e.g. Falcon maximizing payload fraction while running gas generator Merlin, or Starship maximizing staged combustion at expense atrocious payload fraction with steel hull, these are decisions for people who can't afford the program but has to build something, people who can afford the program only cares about the program, because it's never optimal to maximize one or another.

Speaking of which, to date has Falcon demonstrated the ability to launch any payload in mass or volume that even approach each CSS segment launched by LM5B? Has either Falcon 9 or Heavy launched any mission that's equivalent to either CE-5 or 6 or Tianwen-1 in mass and delta-V? Falcons with it's gas generator RP1 engines is technologically incapable of launching any mission LM-5 can launch. That's all that need to be said on the technical.

let's stop comparing the two countries, shall we? ultimately rockets are not the the purpose, the jobs that they are supposed to do is the purpose, if a Rolls Roys can not get me anywhere it is just tonnes metal.