China's Space Program News Thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
On the contrary of getting somebody angry, it just more clearly showed you being a troll and full of BS. You won't get others to the level as low as you.Sure, I just want to see somebody more angry
During the maiden flight the satellite didn't reach the intended orbit and had to expend onboard fuel for orbital insertion.
There was a rumor after the Y2 failure that Y1 also experienced some trouble in putting its payload into orbit, supposedly due to YF-77. Although that rumor was never proven, the trolls are happy to make it a half failure. The very fact that this rumor only came out after Y2 tells that these trolls are searching failure NOT because they could have seen it. The same people would use the opposite approach to excuse all their "heroic space industry idol's" delay, scaling down from promises etc. as success.
SEAD is just one of the trolls.
It’s not a rumor, you can find dozens of reports from CASC discussing LM-5Y1 problem. It’s familiar with the only partial failure of Falcon-9 and btw could you explain more about your ‘anomaly’ theory?
Anybody (not blind) can find the problem from Y1 data sequence. ALL amateurs I know found the problem immediately after the launch.
Actually after Y2 fails they took 3 rounds of ‘归零’(means 3 problems) and none of them was about Y1 problem (it’s about 2nd stage and YF-75, totally irrelevant to YF-77, are you sure you really know anything about LM-5?)
That was due to the Launch was delayed on the ground by 163 minutes. The launch was set at 1800, the launch window was from 1800 to 2040. The actual launch happened at 2043. 3 minutes later than allowed by the calculation. Satellite not only need to reach the orbit of certain diameter and altitude, but also the right phase. Phase is where the satellite's projection point on the surface of the earth. Any delay of launch will make that point further westward off if the sat is to launch eastward. To compensate the delay and resulting phase offset, the launcher must speed up. This is the same as a late departed aircraft must speed up to catch up the scheduled arrival time. The speeding up will demand the engine to burn faster than usual, leading shorter burn time. Even with that one may still miss the arrival time and position. The extra 3 minutes was to be done by the YZ upper stage which is part of the payload not the rocket.
The argument of trouble all relied on the mismatch between the published launch sequence and the actual sequence. The published sequence is in the ticket before the launch. That is based on the 1800 launch time. The actual sequence is the result of launching at 2043. People arguing for the "trouble" seem to miss some basic knowledge of how orbit launching works.
The delay was due to troubles (telemetry data disturbances and ground facilities such as cooling) on the ground before the launch. These troubles were real. But they don't prove existence of troubles of the rocket, not before the launch nor after launch.
Based on the public information available to me, the conclusion is:
- The Y1 mission was delayed due to varias reasons on the ground befor launch.
- There is no evidence indicating CZ-5Y1 rocket had any problem during its flight.
- Attributing mission troubles to the rocket is like blaming the delayed flight on the aircraft instead of the pilot oversleeping.
Last edited:
To me, you are proven to be just a troll. I won't be bothered to further waste my time on the rubbish from your back end.
In the future if you realize that I remained silent on some of your posts, that is because I ignore you. But of course you may feel happy for your win.
Like I said, it is perfectly commonplace for a new launcher today to have one or two launch failures initially. You have a problem when you have launch failures after the rocket should have matured, or when it isn't maturing fast enough. Falcon 1 had, what, 3 launch failures?
In most cases where that happens the rocket would have been cancelled. Only in the early days of the missile age was a launch failure amount like that tolerated. For example the Delta III rocket got cancelled after numerous launch failures.
In most cases where that happens the rocket would have been cancelled. Only in the early days of the missile age was a launch failure amount like that tolerated. For example the Delta III rocket got cancelled after numerous launch failures.
SpaceX has shown that the private sector can attract innovation and funding to the space sector. It has achieved what no government in either the US or China has achieved. I think that's pretty indisputable. One of their major selling points is that due to lower cost, they can launch very very frequently, and more launches demonstrates proven reliability.
Then again it's no surprise, the entire 500 year history of the modern world shows that markets have a role to play and that using private companies is better than relying entirely on central planning. In this principle, space exploration is just a minor chapter. Thankfully the CPC figured this out in 1978 and allows China's private sector space development, but these companies need more support as pointed out in this thread.
Then again it's no surprise, the entire 500 year history of the modern world shows that markets have a role to play and that using private companies is better than relying entirely on central planning. In this principle, space exploration is just a minor chapter. Thankfully the CPC figured this out in 1978 and allows China's private sector space development, but these companies need more support as pointed out in this thread.
Of course. But the main point of the argument was about comparing Falcon-9 and LM-5, I mentioned both of them were formally contracted in 2006. now one have launched for 155 times while another one has only 7 records…how dare somebody talk about SpaceX ‘anomaly’?
- Status