People excited for successful launching of Shenzhou-6

S

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
H5N1 said:
Oh yeah... the very thing that cross my mind too.. and also I notice that the booster produce very little respectable smoke. The flames were also very clear and distinct. Unlike the US shuttle launches.

But I believe the shuttle launch has a much heavier payload... so you can't compare that to the Shenzhou-6.

But the rocket boosters seems more advance than the ones used by the US.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. You're not seriously comparing a Shenzou launch to the STS system are you? They are two totally different animals. The STS system relies on two solid rocket boosters and three main engines. And yes it is much heavier than a smaller rocket. You would be better off (if you want to compare US and PRC) comparing a Shenzou-6 launch to a Delta rocket or something. Deltas are very clean and powerful launchers that are extremely accurate.

Oh, but congratulations to China nonetheless. :)
 
S

sstsubs

Banned Idiot
congraulating china? hey, the russians in 1954 already sent a satellite into space, china is how many decades behind? hey, it is your own government's fault for closing china to the outside world. And it is your 1 billion chinese's fault for allowing them to do so. And even today, china is still closing all the informations and democratic ideas from the outside world. And once again you 1 billion is allowing them to do so.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

yep, nothing ever changes in china.
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
sstsubs said:
congraulating china? hey, the russians in 1954 already sent a satellite into space, china is how many decades behind? hey, it is your own government's fault for closing china to the outside world. And it is your 1 billion chinese's fault for allowing them to do so. And even today, china is still closing all the informations and democratic ideas from the outside world. And once again you 1 billion is allowing them to do so.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

yep, nothing ever changes in china.
Click to expand...

its strange how sometines you can criticize russian equipment, and other times you can praise it. :roll:
 
T

trkl

New Member
Fairthought said:
It isn't just the the size of the payload. The ShenZhou uses liquid fuel propellant (specifically nitrogen tetraoxide as oxidizer and UDMH as fuel), which produces a much clearer plume. The Shuttle uses solid fuel propellant, which creates a much larger, opaque plume. Also the Shuttle plume is not smoke, per se, it is water vapor.

The US used to believe the solid fuel rockets were technologically a generation ahead of liquid fuel rockets because it has a stronger specific impulse (~15% more) than a liquid fuel rocket of the same dimensions.

For decades the US sneered at Russian rocket technology as being a whole generation behind America's because the Russian kept the liquid fuel. After the cold war it was revealed the Russian liquid fuel rockets had a major advantage over solid fuel: its a controllable burn. The russian's actually created rocket engines with throttle control to give their rockets a more efficient launch, thus a higher specific impulse. Liquid rockets also offer much higher safety for passengers, as the trajectory can be altered allowing multiple escape points throughout liftoff. The danger of a solid fuel rocket is there is no control. Once it burns, you're in for the pre-programmed ride and that's that.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, American generals were shocked to be told by US scientists that the Russian rockets were more advanced than their own. This went against everything the've been told for 30 years. Lockheed made a deal with a Russian company to buy the technology for throttle control liquid engines (the RD-180), which is now in service as their newest launcher, the Atlas V. I saw the first Atlas V while it was still in the Final Assembly Building. It was ironic hearing the factory guide extolling the Atlas V as Lockheed's greatest creation as we visitors could plainly see the rocket nozzle's were stencilled in Cyrillic script.
Click to expand...

Solid rockets have a lower ISP than liquid rockets, not a higher Isp. The US prefered solid rockets for ICBMs because they are easy to store and can be launched quickly, while most liquid rockeds have to store their fuel seperately and have to be fueled up right before launch. The US orbital launch vehicles have always used liquid fuels, or used rockets with a some solid stages and some liquid stages.

The shuttle uses solid rocket boosters, but its main engines run on liquid O2 and liquid H2. Oviously when you burn H2 and O2 you get H2O, aka water/steam. The US used to use fuels like NO4 and UMDH, they are good rocket fuels, but now the only liquid fuels used are H2/O2 or O2/kerosene due to environmental reasons (NO4 and UMDH are very toxic).

The Russian liquid rocket engines are very good, and in some cases superior to US designs. However, the US has been making throtleable liquid engines for many decades so it is not correct to say that the US uses only solid designs.
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
walter said:
recession for four years?--what are you talking about? The US economy is on solid footing and has been for a couple of years now.
Click to expand...

yes the economy is earning money, but the money it owes to others is growing even faster.
 
S

Skycom Type 2

New Member
faster way to get china into space?

Since we are on the topic of space travel, and there seems to be a large number of knowledgeable people on this forum, what do you guys make of this idea?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


basic summery: build a giant track into a mountain at 45 degree angle, mount rockets on a sled, put a spaceship on rocket sled, boost up the mountain, launch the spaceship off the mountain at an attitude of some 20,000+ feet where the air is half as dense as sea level, with a velocity of mach 1+

personal opinion: while I am not quite sure about the cost reduction benefits being as high as they said (90%) because your still using fuel to move a mass a certain distance, and to obtain a certain velocity. I can’t fault the fact that it would be safer and easier to use than vertical launch systems, like if the rockets on the sled go bust after launching you can just turn them off and the entire rig will stop by itself due to gravity. Easier because by the time the spaceship launch’s its going mach 1+, so you don’t have to worry about those winds blowing back it down to earth:) .

China benefits: the ego boost of being able to put more stuff in space than the U.S did in 30 years, as well as the small advantage of dominating the space theatre if the cost’s pan out. If they don’t well at least the rockets are less likely to blow up because of a minor computing error:) .

Speculation: Also since the U.S aerospace giants (Lockheed Martin, etc…) have a lot of clout, the U.S might not be able to switch to a sky ramp even if the people at N.A.S.A wanted to. While china is a centralized government, so they could just order one to be built.

Random thoughts: this is my first post I hope I don’t get a warning for this:(
 
A

ahho

Junior Member
Re: faster way to get china into space?

Skycom Type 2 said:
Since we are on the topic of space travel, and there seems to be a large number of knowledgeable people on this forum, what do you guys make of this idea?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


basic summery: build a giant track into a mountain at 45 degree angle, mount rockets on a sled, put a spaceship on rocket sled, boost up the mountain, launch the spaceship off the mountain at an attitude of some 20,000+ feet where the air is half as dense as sea level, with a velocity of mach 1+

personal opinion: while I am not quite sure about the cost reduction benefits being as high as they said (90%) because your still using fuel to move a mass a certain distance, and to obtain a certain velocity. I can’t fault the fact that it would be safer and easier to use than vertical launch systems, like if the rockets on the sled go bust after launching you can just turn them off and the entire rig will stop by itself due to gravity. Easier because by the time the spaceship launch’s its going mach 1+, so you don’t have to worry about those winds blowing back it down to earth:) .

China benefits: the ego boost of being able to put more stuff in space than the U.S did in 30 years, as well as the small advantage of dominating the space theatre if the cost’s pan out. If they don’t well at least the rockets are less likely to blow up because of a minor computing error:) .

Speculation: Also since the U.S aerospace giants (Lockheed Martin, etc…) have a lot of clout, the U.S might not be able to switch to a sky ramp even if the people at N.A.S.A wanted to. While china is a centralized government, so they could just order one to be built.

Random thoughts: this is my first post I hope I don’t get a warning for this:(
Click to expand...


i think this is a pretty good opinion, why would you get a warning
 
chinawhite

chinawhite

Banned Idiot
@Skycom Type 2.

Actually i have read about that but my version is different.

Use of magets or super conductors to propel the space ship into space. Like a cannon.

I think one has been tested or in testing in africa somewhere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not impressed with these giant rockets giving off posinious gases which causes global warming.

If man wants to chuck things ino space thing a cheap alternative to these rockets. Which still rely on the same technology as the germans used in their V-2s

Regards,

Chinawhite
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top