China's Space Program News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

winword

Junior Member
Registered Member
And as I said, it was unacceptable then, and unacceptable now. Your "not ideal" moniker actually whitewashes the situation.
And yes, what you did was whataboutism. What the US did 45 years ago should have zero bearing on this.
It's good that you now realized it is not acceptable anytime then, as your original quote somehow indicates that it suddenly become unacceptable in 2021.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's good that you now realized it is not acceptable anytime then, as your original quote somehow indicates that it suddenly become unacceptable in 2021.
I never said or insinuated that. I am very specific in the words I use when conversing online, especially in matters of my expertise or interest. Please pay more attention in the future, it would help straighten possible misunderstandings.

In any case, thank you for your insight.
 

winword

Junior Member
Registered Member
I never said or insinuated that. I am very specific in the words I use when conversing online, especially in matters of my expertise or interest. Please pay more attention in the future, it would help straighten possible misunderstandings.

In any case, thank you for your insight.
Which frankly, in 2021 is both avoidable and unacceptable.
I was paying attention, that's why I "specifically" quoted this in the first place. I will drop this conversation as it will not yield anything anymore.
 

Quickie

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

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.

We don't have much information on this. It's quite possible the above measures were found to be ineffective in controlling the deorbiting of such a large payload. Or it's also possible such a measure were already in place but with the rocket stage tumbling it would be difficult or even safe to use such a measure.

Short of upgrading and modifying the LM-5B core stage with thrusters and its associated systems, the solution could be found in the 921 projects as Temstar has suggested.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Looks like it’s descending at 6.5km per minute. Anyone know if there are any estimates on time to enter atmosphere? Apparently it’s altitude is moving between 170km and 372km.
 
Last edited:

by78

General
The core module (Tianhe)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the night sky.

51151742070_c09c5c2771_k.jpg

51151740145_7e4c104835_h.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top