China's Space Program Thread II

sunnymaxi

Major
Registered Member
Oh boy, the cope is strong. The attempt at switching to cryogenic fuel is the primary reason China is "falling behind." If cryogenic rockets are so superior, why isn’t China’s cryogenic rocket program automatically successful? Checkmate. Instead of confronting this glaring contradiction, cryogenic fanboy scribbled a page of drivel, blaming failures of Chinese cryogenic rockets on… the existence of hypergolic rockets.

Succumbing to the cryogenic rocket hype was how China got itself into the current mess. The Wenchang launch site should have been built with hypergolic support from the start. That way, while cryogenic rockets matured over time, hypergolic rockets could launch without discarded stages on to villages. This should have been an obvious hedge. Yet, braindead cryogenic fanboys obsess over total abandonment of hypergolic fuel in favor of cryogenic systems, disregarding proper engineering methodologies.

Everyone (read: just the West) screams at China to halt its hypogolic rocket program—not out of concern for sustainability but sheer obstructionism. As soon as China’s cryogenic rocket development got into high gear, the U.S. imposed an embargo on cryogenic technologies. This move tells us hypergolic rockets were never the issue. If that wasn’t clear enough, recall the West’s reaction to successful Long March-5 launches: condemning the rocket as "too big" and its debris as "too risky," recycling the same tired "rockets falling on people" propaganda.

Meanwhile, every accusation is a confession. While loudly criticizing China’s space debris, the West quietly dumped a massive battery pack from the ISS that struck a home five years later. SpaceX’s Starship debris rains over the Caribbean routinely, yet no one bats an eye.

It’s also interesting how the concept of "Jai Hind" got dragged into this. Like Indians fixated on chasing paper performance metrics for imported technologies, cryogenic fanboy mirrors this blind obsession. The drivel merely assumes cryogenic rockets are "advanced"—but advanced according to whom?! Clearly, fanboy lacks critical thinking skills and took Western claims at face value, never asking whether cryogenic rockets are actually suitable for China. All that matters for fanboy is cryogenic rockets stronk! Jai Cryogenic!

You’re right about one thing though: China has made many mistakes over the past decades. First, falling for Western psy-ops promoting cryogenic rockets. Second, failing to hedge at Wenchang launch site. Third, chasing reusable rockets. Basically, China competes against Western strengths with China’s weaknesses. China’s true power lies in mass production, and it should have leaned into that advantage and mass-produce hypergolic rockets like sausages.
this is what exactly i have said above.

all major private firms like LandSpace/Deep Blue/iSpace building large production facilities for mass production of their rockets. same with pulsating line for Engines too. a strong indication what they are planning, using China's industrial prowess for mass production. we have a very strong supply chain of industrial raw material.

by next year end, China might have 3-4 working heavy lift rockets available from private firms. 15-25 tons LEO capacity. not reusable

Gravity2
Nebula2
Zhuque3
Tianlong3
Hyperbola3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in Parallel these firms working on reusability too, but Reusability is a very niche feature, complex and time taking process. so Chinese private firms make sure, national space mission won't disrupt. they will gradually shift on reusability once they achieve full success. till then their normal heavy lift rockets will continue to serve national missions.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Reusability is a very niche feature, and needs too many right conditions to justify the complexity. First, there needs to be enough launch volume which just doesn't exist. Second, the rocket needs to have a minimum size, which is above what most customers require. Third, refurbishment has to be significantly less than a new build. Forth, geography plays a role, which puts the US in an advantageous position but not so for China.

I wouldn't even call reusability a success for SpaceX. SpaceX basically pays itself for the launches through Starlink. It is very clever from a business point of view, but reusability by itself isn't game changing because SpaceX could never have survived relying solely on reusability. For China, reusability is a fool's errand.

I would disagree.

China has 2+ mega constellations in planning. So call it 20000+ satellites @ 1500kg each.
That would be 1714 reusable launches of a Falcon 9 sized capability.

As per the Falcon 9, a reusable launch is less than half the cost.

And in terms of geography, Wenchang is significantly closer to the equator than anywhere in the US.
 

Engineer

Major
The actual question you should be asking is this: would it actually be sensible to launch 20000+ minisats. If and only if the answer to that is yes should you be asking: how to launch 20000+ 1500 kg satellites at a lower cost than Falcon 9.

Reusability is a red herring. As long as the objective is achieved, the approach would be irrelevant.
 

nativechicken

Junior Member
Registered Member
The actual question you should be asking is this: would it actually be sensible to launch 20000+ minisats. If and only if the answer to that is yes should you be asking: how to launch 20000+ 1500 kg satellites at a lower cost than Falcon 9.

Reusability is a red herring. As long as the objective is achieved, the approach would be irrelevant.
The answer is undoubtedly yes. To achieve sufficient communication quality, broad coverage, and substantial access capacity (bandwidth) for low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations, deploying tens of thousands of small satellites is essential. Here's why:

LEO satellites orbiting at 200-1,000 km altitudes complete an Earth revolution in 1.5-2 hours. This means each satellite traverses approximately 1 degree of arc every 15 seconds. When ground terminals communicate with these satellites, the elevation angle control for phased array antennas is typically limited to 30 degrees. Consequently, each LEO satellite remains within usable range for mere minutes before handover to the next satellite becomes necessary. Given that this system primarily serves consumer markets with massive user bases, maintaining tens of thousands of satellites is a logical requirement.

Humanity's long-term pursuit of affordable space access continues. China has planned to achieve preliminary Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing (VTVL) capability between 2025-2027 (with core technical pathways established around 2018), followed by 5-6 years of maturation. Recent academic papers specifically reference this timeline. Therefore, single-use rockets still having 8-10 years of operational relevance represents a natural transitional phase in aerospace development.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The actual question you should be asking is this: would it actually be sensible to launch 20000+ minisats. If and only if the answer to that is yes should you be asking: how to launch 20000+ 1500 kg satellites at a lower cost than Falcon 9.

Reusability is a red herring. As long as the objective is achieved, the approach would be irrelevant.

With 20,000 satellites, that will only cover a tiny fraction of global internet access needs.
 

ZachL111

New Member
Registered Member
31st rocket launch of 2025

Launch time: 12:05 21st May (Beijing Time)
Launch site: Jiuquan, Gansu
Rocket: Kinetica 1-Y7
Payload: Six satellites (3 remote-sensing satellites, 1 radar satellite, 1 mini weather satellite, and 1 experimental satellite)
Mission: Gather data/images for urban construction planning, environmental monitoring, weather forecast and other civilian purposes
Launch video:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Report:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Brief summary of May until now: [7 in total, all success]

DateNo. of satellitesCategoryNameApplication
11UnknownmilitaryYaogan-40 group02Comms experiment, likely ELINT
131militaryTJS-19Comms experiment
1412civilianSpace Computing ConstellationAI-powered image/data analysis
176civilianTianyi 29,34,35,42,45,46Environmental sensing, with SAR & comms, etc.
194civilianTianqi 34~37LEO comms
201civilianChinaSat-3BTransmission of speech, data, and broadcast television
216civilianTaijing-3-04, Taijing-4-02A , Xingrui-11, Xingjiyuan-1, Lifang108-001, Xiguang-1-02Urban construction planning, environmental monitoring, weather forecast, etc.
I'm glad they are launching way more this year compared to last. Excited for the future of the space industry in China for sure.
 

Quickie

Colonel
this is what exactly i have said above.

all major private firms like LandSpace/Deep Blue/iSpace building large production facilities for mass production of their rockets. same with pulsating line for Engines too. a strong indication what they are planning, using China's industrial prowess for mass production. we have a very strong supply chain of industrial raw material.

by next year end, China might have 3-4 working heavy lift rockets available from private firms. 15-25 tons LEO capacity. not reusable

Gravity2
Nebula2
Zhuque3
Tianlong3
Hyperbola3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in Parallel these firms working on reusability too, but Reusability is a very niche feature, complex and time taking process. so Chinese private firms make sure, national space mission won't disrupt. they will gradually shift on reusability once they achieve full success. till then their normal heavy lift rockets will continue to serve national missions.

The most expensive parts of the Falcon 9 Booster stage are the Merlin rocket engines. The question should be how many times Merlin rocket engines themselves could be reused, rather than just the booster stage. That kind of info is not in the open, and it's likely that the reusability of the rocket engines is still the main issue without sacrificing reliability.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The most expensive parts of the Falcon 9 Booster stage are the Merlin rocket engines. The question should be how many times Merlin rocket engines themselves could be reused, rather than just the booster stage. That kind of info is not in the open, and it's likely that the reusability of the rocket engines is still the main issue without sacrificing reliability.

So far, they're up to 20x for the Merlin rocket engines, but aiming for 100.
 

Quickie

Colonel
So far, they're up to 20x for the Merlin rocket engines, but aiming for 100.

The claim is for one of the engines, but on average, how often will they have to replace the worn-out Merlin rocket engines before reusing the booster first stage?

I checked the Wikipedia and SpaceX website, there is no mention of the 20x Merlin engine reused claim.

Only Google AI is claiming it with the disclaimer "AI responses may include mistakes." at the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Top