China's Space Program News Thread

[broadsword]

But according to Escobar's post here,

The two-stage Naga-L, based on components used for heavier-lift versions of China’s Long March rocket family

. I don't think the Russian engine deal, if it is not one of those fantasies again, has anything to do with getting round the ban.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I am going to carbon copy this one

Russian Rocket Engine Delivery to China May Be Agreed by December
© Sputnik/ Yuri Streletc

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

08:09 12.10.2015(updated 10:18 12.10.2015) Get short URL

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1435220
Russia may sign a rocket engine delivery agreement with China during Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s visit in mid-December, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Monday.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

HARBIN (Sputnik) – "We are talking about an agreement to deliver Russian rocket engines to China, as well as counter deliveries of Chinese microelectronics we need in spacecraft development," Rogozin said after meeting Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang.


Rogozin opened the second China-Russia Exposition in Harbin, the capital of the northeast Chinese province of Heilongjian bordering Russia, alongside Wang Yang, on Monday.

The fair will last till Friday, over 10,000 businessmen from 103 countries are reported to be attending the trade fair's opening day.

The two countries’ first expo was held on June 30-July 4 in Harbin last year under the "new platform – new possibilities" slogan.

Last year's successful negotiations between Russia and China on expanding cooperation in the space industry resulted in the implementation of joint projects in the sphere.





Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So whats Happening? Well It's probably like the Su35 deal. Wishful thinking from Moscow there hope is that by making this grand announcement the PRC will say OK we'll buy.
Now at the root of this is that for over a decade United Launch Alliance who has supplied Launches to the USAF and NASA has used RD-180 rockets from Russia, When the Ukraine and now Syria situation kicked up Congress suddenly found the Idea of Using Russian made Rockets on National Defence Payloads so they Imposed a order that the DOD has to use a American made engine. Now ULA took it's time to start looking for a Engine but they know that economically It makes more logic to use a Common engine on there launches for both NASA and the DOD. So they recently Asked the Pentagon for a Waver. If that Waver was issued then ULA could have continued to use Russian engines. Problem? the Pentagon wisely said NO.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pentagon denies ULA waiver on Russian engines


By

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

October 9

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

has said it desperately needs to compete in the multibillion-dollar national security launch market.

ULA, the joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing that had a monopoly on national security satellite launches for a decade, had pleaded with the Pentagon for a waiver that would allow it to use more RD-180 engines to power its Atlas V rocket.

The company has four of the engines in its inventory that it could use for national security launches, ULA chief executive Tory Bruno recently told reporters. But he said ULA needs at least 14 to compete to launch national security payloads, such as spy and communications satellites, before it is able to use a new, American-made engine it is developing with Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

For the first time in years, ULA has to compete for that work after SpaceX, the space company founded by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, recently was certified by the Pentagon to compete for those contracts. But the competition comes after Congress banned the use of Russian-made engines in response to the escalating tensions with Russia.

The limited supply of RD-180s has put ULA in a precarious position, and Bruno and others have said that it could lead to an unintended consequence: leaving the Pentagon yet again with a single launch provider — this time SpaceX, the only other company certified to launch military payloads into space.

In a statement Friday afternoon, Lt. Cmdr. Courtney Hillson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said that the Defense Department realizes that it "cannot be in the risky position of relying on only one source of space launch for critical national security satellites that must be launched reliably and on schedule."

But she said that Pentagon officials had determined that no "immediate action is required to address the future risk of having only one source of space launch services."


She said the Defense Department would continue to evaluate the need for a waiver, and said that to maintain two viable launch providers, it might consider awarding some contracts on a sole-source basis, meaning ULA could still stay in the game without fear of competition.

A ULA spokesperson declined to comment.

SpaceX, which has won contracts to ferry cargo and eventually astronauts to the International Space Station, pushed hard for the right to compete against ULA for the lucrative Pentagon launches. It even sued the Air Force, in a case that was eventually settled, and then pressed the Pentagon to certify it.

That happened over the summer. Now SpaceX plans to bid against ULA in the first competitive national security launch in a decade to launch a GPS III satellite.

Bids are due next month, and the contract is expected to be awarded in March.

This places the joint Boeing Lockheed Martin venture Into a Position where they are being kicked out of the DOD launches after a set period as they need to look for new engines this also places the Strategic launches on Space X rockets and it finally hits the Russians who are about to loose there best customer of the RD180. So The Russians now loosing there West buyer want to sell east.

 

[tphuang]

this is a thread on Chinese space program, not Russian or US space program.

 

[broadsword]

I can't help feeling tphuang's comment adds irony to the Russian announcement. China's space program thus far, up to the LM-5, does not call for purchase of foreign rocket technology. And the LM-9 is a little too far down the road to suggest a commercial deal has been reached. Basically, China is self-sufficient and has nothing to do with rebuffing its friend.

 

[tidalwave]

what happen to China's Space Shuttle program Plan, Completely shelved??
Shuttle program has alot more potential( for downstream related industries) than capsule based vehicle.

 

[tidalwave]

I can't help feeling tphuang's comment adds irony to the Russian announcement. China's space program thus far, up to the LM-5, does not call for purchase of foreign rocket technology. And the LM-9 is a little too far down the road to suggest a commercial deal has been reached. Basically, China is self-sufficient and has nothing to do with rebuffing its friend.

It's kind of funny, Russia trying to send rocket engines to China that China doesn't need whereas it needs 117S Russia doesn't want to give.

It's going opposite direction.

For space program , maybe China can request Russia for its obsolete Burat Prototype. That might have usefulness.

 

[plawolf]

what happen to China's Space Shuttle program Plan, Completely shelved??
Shuttle program has alot more potential( for downstream related industries) than capsule based vehicle.

The American shuttle proved more costly than one use capsules.

Spacecraft are a delicate balance between safely and weight. The paradox is that the safer you want to make something, the more in-built redundancy and the higher the tolerances you want. However, the more redundancy and the higher your tolerances, the higher the weight of your spacecraft and cost per launch and the smaller your payload.

In an ideal world, of course having something that can be refused hundreds to thousands of times is far better than something that is one use from an economical point of view (think paper plates vs regular ones).

The problem is that our current materials and engine and fuel technology just isn't remotely close to being able to build something robust enough to last hundreds or thousands of launches without needing expensive and time consuming checks and tests before and after each mission (thus making it not much different, indeed, worse than building it anew each time), yet is light enough that we can put into orbit, never mind have it carry any meaningful payload.

The best medium term solution is probably going to be to just build a shuttle in orbit and leave it there, potentially docked at a space station.

Send the sections up as modular sections, with a robotics crane arm module for the space station to help assembly.

Since the shuttle isn't going to have to take the stresses of re-entry or launch, it can be fairly lightweight yet spacious, with a big cargo hold and its own robotic crane arm(s) and nice crew facilities.

The crew would blast off in launch capsules that carries a fuel module for the shuttle. They dock at the space station, transfer crew, mission payload and fuel (latter two could and should be done externally using the robotic crane arms) and the crew could go out and do their thing with the shuttle and come back when they are ready to return to earth, when they would take the capsule back down.

I think with such a capacity would be worth developing, as it would open up all sorts of possibilities for the way we design and use satellites, which take up the lion share of the launch resources.

Satellites are designed as throw away items, but the overwhelming majority of the time, they can last many times their current useful lives (or at least be designed to be able to) and really only have to be destroyed because they run out of fuel, which is crazy considering how much they cost to build and launch.

A shuttle and space station could allow use to design satellites that can be easily refuelled and have their mission packages upgraded or repaired. Satellites can be designed with easy to detach fuel and mission modules, which the shuttle could change out. More complicated work could be done by the shuttle towing entire satellites back to the space station. If you built a hanger module the astronauts could do a lot of complex work inside without the need for EVA and the heavy and clumsy space suits and time pressure.

The main issue is how to get payloads into space cheaply.

The best feasible solutions to that without needing a revolutionary technological breakthrough would be either a space elevator, or a massive EM catapult akin to a giant EMAL or railgun.

Obviously, the EMAL or railgun launch method would only be suitable for unmanned cargo runs, but they should constitute the lion share of manned space missions, so it would be worth it.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The most efficent use of a Large Shuttle like the now retired Nasa program is as a pseudo Space station the only functions of the cargo bay are to either put up a large satellite, but you can do that with large lifters or to hold mission modules.
once you have a space station in orbit why bother with a large shuttle? A smatter Shuttle capsule type like the X37B, DreamChaser, DynaSoar. Mig 105, ESA Hermes concept, or Hope-X concept come in as better options.
Basically all the long term research is done on the space station so all you need is Platforms to Launch the station then Ferry launchers to get personal and equipment up, dock and transfer. For that a Capsule or Capsule like Shuttle will do.
The CNSA it seems to me wanted more the space station then space shuttle so although they have flirted with a Orbiter class shuttle there not really aiming for anything much bigger then X37 at this point. Maybe down the line Using the tech to develop a a slightly Scaled up Shenlong meant to replace the Shenzhou. Carry only cargo or crew and a small cargo but no where near the size of the Boran or Orbiter.

 

[plawolf]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The most efficent use of a Large Shuttle like the now retired Nasa program is as a pseudo Space station the only functions of the cargo bay are to either put up a large satellite, but you can do that with large lifters or to hold mission modules.
once you have a space station in orbit why bother with a large shuttle? A smatter Shuttle capsule type like the X37B, DreamChaser, DynaSoar. Mig 105, ESA Hermes concept, or Hope-X concept come in as better options.
Basically all the long term research is done on the space station so all you need is Platforms to Launch the station then Ferry launchers to get personal and equipment up, dock and transfer. For that a Capsule or Capsule like Shuttle will do.
The CNSA it seems to me wanted more the space station then space shuttle so although they have flirted with a Orbiter class shuttle there not really aiming for anything much bigger then X37 at this point. Maybe down the line Using the tech to develop a a slightly Scaled up Shenlong meant to replace the Shenzhou. Carry only cargo or crew and a small cargo but no where near the size of the Boran or Orbiter.

Space stations are not designed to manoeuvre much. Sure they can make course changes, but only at a very slow speed, and at the expense of considerable fuel consumption (compared to a small shuttle).

You also have to bear in mind that with how much junk we have left up there, driving a massive space station around could expose it to unnecessary risk. Especially if you want to go where most satellites (and space junk) are located.

Similarly, a lot of the satellites up there are sizeable as well, so you don't really want to be dragging them back and forth needlessly either.

My idea is to build a shuttle small enough to be able to manoeuvre to avoid debris easily and can dock with satellites with little difficulty, but have a big enough cargo hold to be able to bring all but the largest satellites on board, so crews can spend far longer and do far more complicated work then they would feasibly be able to during EVA.

Since you are assembling it in orbit and it is never intended to re-enter the atmosphere, it does not need to be built anywhere like as robustly as the American (and Russian) space shuttles. Saving in costs both in terms of manufacturing and sending into orbit, as well as fuel costs associated with it flying about in orbit.

The lightweight design and modular construction would also allow it to be built larger than traditional shuttles.

The ultimate goal is to move satellite design and use from essentially throw away as of now, to reusable, or at the very least being able to extend satellite usable life to several times what it is now.

The enormous cost savings from such a move would pay for the space station and shuttle many times over, not to mention the environmental benefits of being able to reuse or keep satellites operating much longer before they become more space junk.

 

[escobar]

Any idea which rocket version will be used?

could be a version of LM-6...

Also, does China have any plan to develop reusable rockets?

nothing serious, until we get more infos...