Guys, give it a rest.
@tacoburger Go start a rocket company in China.
@tacoburger Go start a rocket company in China.
He can't. He's not smart enough, talented enough, nor even Chinese enough to have any company, let alone a rocket company.Guys, give it a rest.
@tacoburger Go start a rocket company in China.
What is this gate keeping? Do you need a PhD or a billion dollar company to criticize things? I call it how I see it. This is a just a random internet forum, not some paid clubhouse for 200 IQ billionaires like yourself.He can't. He's not smart enough, talented enough, nor even Chinese enough to have any company, let alone a rocket company.
And how is that all that history related to how you think a fully reusable rocket is useless? All that is ancient history. The entire point of new technology is to change the game, and force the entire world to change with them. What's next you're gonna go on and on about the ancient thousand year old history of horse riding and the unbreakable spirit of the cavalry and how this newfangled "cars" will never make sense, how will they get the oil, meanwhile grass is literally free and grows everywhere.Actually the whole EELV program (Atlas V, Delta IV) was supposed to make cheaper rockets. And it did. At least compared with the Titan IV and Space Shuttle launches they replaced. Both launchers use a common core architecture which was meant to scale to triple core launchers for launching large NRO spysats. In the Delta IV they went as far as making the engines as cheap as possible. For example the main engine, RS-68, uses an expendable ablative carbon-phenolic nozzle instead of using regenerative cooling. Each core only uses one engine to have as few parts as possible. In the case of the Atlas V, they bought the RD-180 from the Russians, which was much cheaper than any engine produced in the US. Including the RS-68. Despite being way more complicated in number of parts and design.
The EELV program was supposed to also lead to a resurgence of the US space launch sector clawing back market share from Arianespace and the Ariane 4 and 5. The thing is, back then, the Russians were still selling launches. A Soyuz or Proton launch was even cheaper than the EELVs due to lower cost of labor in Russia and depreciated factories and launch sites. Despite the Russians operating from launch sites further away from the Equator. So both EELV rockets ended up just launching US government payloads and having little success in the launch market.
Even with all the claimed advantages of the Falcon 9 the launch price for it was similar to Russian launches on the Soyuz or Proton. And initially reliability was low so it didn't compete with Arianespace in that either. It took a US government ban on Russian launches to basically kill that. They banned launches of US satellites, or US manufactured satellites on Russian launchers. And the US is one of the world's largest satellite manufacturers. Only non US companies continued using Russian launch service. And some did this to the very end. For example Starlink competitor OneWeb was still launching satellites on Soyuz, manufactured in Europe, until the moment the Russians stopped providing launch services to all Western countries.
For similar reasons you won't see Chinese launchers putting Western satellites into orbit. The US might claim all sorts of reasons for ITAR sanctions on China. But the truth is they just wanted to remove another competitor from the market.
What is this gate keeping? Do you need a PhD or a billion dollar company to criticize things? I call it how I see it. This is a just a random internet forum, not some paid clubhouse for 200 IQ billionaires like yourself.
Mr. Liu Baiqi (刘百奇), chairman of Galactic Energy, has revealed that Pallas-1's maiden flight is scheduled to take place toward the end of this year. He also said the company plans 10-12 launches for its Ceres-1 launch vehicle this year.