I’m sure they ran out of money for Velcro after spending billions instead hall-effect thrusters.
China's Space Program News Thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
I’m sure they ran out of money for Velcro after spending billions instead hall-effect thrusters.
I thought there were thrusters on the first stage to prevent something like this. If not, China could use the criticism to their advantage.
I believe the Chinese use the term "Remote Sensing".
Quickie
Colonel
CNSA doesn't have much of a choice. The Space Station core is probably the largest payload launched in decades. The rocket stage doesn't have the thrusters/control surfaces like that of the Space Shuttle that would allow it to have a controlled re-entry/landing.
This is incorrect, it has a lot of choices. All modern upper stages have the ability to alter their orbit as part of the pacification process post-separation. The problem with this specific variant is that it has no upper stage, the core/sustainer itself is what holds the PAF and the payload itself.
It was known for quite a time that not adding an RCS component would result in having a mass of more than 20 tons tumbling in orbit post-separation. Which frankly, in 2021 is both avoidable and unacceptable. Thus, it had been suspected that measures were made to allow for de-orbiting the stage via upgrading the stage batteries and timing the pacification process (opening the bi-valves to remove residual propellant) so as to control the re-entry point. There were subtle clues coming from CALT on this.
Something went wrong on this one or the changes simply did not go through. In any case, the result is highly regrettable. It is impossible to argue otherwise, unless you either don't care about spaceflight or don't care about China's Space Program.
edit:
Last edited:
Rather than continue to upgrade LM-5 and 5B perhaps the plan is to focus effort on 921 and use 921 core only for LM-5B type missions once it comes online.
For sure this is not ideal, but is it really more acceptable for the Skylab second stage to do the same thing earlier?
antiterror13
Brigadier
What is the resolution of this satellite ?, I am hoping better than 0.1m
Please keep in mind that these kind of generalizations don't help the conversation in my honest opinion. In any case, if you are really interested in the subject at hand:
1. Whataboutism has no place in these forums. Two things can be bad at the same time.
2. What was acceptable with the tech and specifics of the 70's is certainly not acceptable now.
3. The 1979 Skylab debacle was not acceptable. It was a major incident with big ramifications that informed thereafter some of the tech and specifics I mention in 2.
4. Skylab was purposefully de-orbited but the then state of the art (with regards to material burn rates) resulted in a landfall miscalculation. 40+ years later, 2021-035B is reported as tumbling uncontrollably in space. And this is the second time for this specific variant.
This is not whataboutism as you said it is not acceptable in 2021 so I was wondering is it acceptable in 1975. As far as I know there were people on the ground in 1975 as well. I'm also talking about the second stage not Skylab itself.
"The spent 49-ton stage which had launched Skylab in 1973 remained in orbit for almost two years, and made an uncontrolled reentry on January 11, 1975."
And as I said, it was unacceptable then, and unacceptable now. Your "not ideal" moniker actually whitewashes the situation in my honest opinion.
And yes, what you did was whataboutism. It's actually the definition of whataboutism. Even your sentence structure was textbook on it.
In any case, please understand that what the US did 45 years ago should have zero bearing on this.
Last edited:
- Status