China's Space Program News Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Falcon 9 Series Rockets are a Commercial Rocket design meant for a Fairly small payload.
The Dragon Series capsule is a proverbial feather weight at a little over 10 tons loaded weight when compared to Other Capsules This is because It's something of a no frills ride. ( IE did Elon Show the Space John in The Dragon V2 intro? No that's because for a simple trip up to the ISS for less than a Day or so The Depends will do...)
The Heavy is more or less a bit of a Cheat in construction by taking three First stages if Falcon 9 and bolting them together.
That all said It's primarily a space Taxi ( or perhaps Space UBER?) meant for launching based on whomever is happy to pay the fair.
And When looking manned The model is also off As the Shenzou Spacecraft is a Science based Craft intended to operate as part of the Tiangong hab.

Therefore the comparison model is wrong.
Spacex will crank out for more than just one customer. They are looking to try and get NASA and the USAF signing contracts but they are not limited to them.

The Long March series is intended for a specific buyer The PRC government whether the PLA or CNSA these are not going for commercial launches.
basically you're comparing a Personal car to a Taxi cab.
If you wanted a more apt analog Then The Russian Angara series seems almost the spitting image of the new series of LM rockets. If you have to compare to an American then the Atlas V.

 

[Blitzo]

Falcon 9 Series Rockets are a Commercial Rocket design meant for a Fairly small payload.
The Dragon Series capsule is a proverbial feather weight at a little over 10 tons loaded weight when compared to Other Capsules This is because It's something of a no frills ride. ( IE did Elon Show the Space John in The Dragon V2 intro? No that's because for a simple trip up to the ISS for less than a Day or so The Depends will do...)
The Heavy is more or less a bit of a Cheat in construction by taking three First stages if Falcon 9 and bolting them together.
That all said It's primarily a space Taxi ( or perhaps Space UBER?) meant for launching based on whomever is happy to pay the fair.
And When looking manned The model is also off As the Shenzou Spacecraft is a Science based Craft intended to operate as part of the Tiangong hab.

Therefore the comparison model is wrong.
Spacex will crank out for more than just one customer. They are looking to try and get NASA and the USAF signing contracts but they are not limited to them.

The Long March series is intended for a specific buyer The PRC government whether the PLA or CNSA these are not going for commercial launches.
basically you're comparing a Personal car to a Taxi cab.
If you wanted a more apt analog Then The Russian Angara series seems almost the spitting image of the new series of LM rockets. If you have to compare to an American then the Atlas V.

Well, if SpaceX offers cheaper launch costs compared to its other rockets at similar reliability then it doesn't really matter if it uses a different configuration or not, and obviously it is important for other space agencies not to mention contractors to maintain competitiveness the best way they can.

That isn't really a matter of dispute, and isn't really what AndrewS and I are talking about.

The only issue I had with Andrew's statement, was the part about the LM-5/6/-7 variants not being "mass produced," because they are probably going to do launches for the next two decades and rack up hundreds of launches collectively... and even if they do not use as many common components as the Falcon family the sheer amount of rockets produced of each type will allow them to be considered mass produced.

If that kind of projection of the expected numbers of LM-5/6/7 are not considered "mass produced" then I don't think any existing (past or present) space launch vehicle can be considered as mass produced, in that case.

 

[AndrewS]

Yes. All past and current space vehicles are essentially experimental systems because of the comparatively small number of launches and very high costs. Just look at the extra-ordinary high amount of work that has to go into prepping a rocket launch.

But SpaceX have broken the mold by applying mass-production design, production, launch methodologies, and by demonstrating the viability of reusable rockets. They're already past the point where the Merlin Engine is the most used rocket engine in history with the longest track record, yet their launch curve is still ramping upwards.

This means the LM-5/6/7 rocket family will be decisively superceded in terms of launch costs - unless they make the rockets reusable and can mass-produce as well.

I give it about 4 years before SpaceX upend the industry and start high-volume low-cost commercial launches with reusable rockets. So let's not talk about the LM-5/6/7 series being used for the next few decades.

===
Now there is also a discussion about what qualifies as mass production. So let's go with the suggested figure of 50 LM rockets as qualifying as mass production, even though I disagree with it.

50 rockets over 5 years is only 10 rockets per year. If we look at labour hours, they typically halve every 10-20 repetitions in the shipbuilding world. So that would mean labour efficiency would only half 3x (to 12.5% of the initial labour cost) by the end of that 5 year period.

But if we look at SpaceX, they would get to that point in around 2years whereas LM would still be stuck at around 40%-50% of initial labour cost.

Of course, there are other costs to consider, but it gives us a flavour for what happens with scale and standardisation.

And the funny thing is, this is the sort of thing that Chinese companies (commercial and military) normally do to their US/European counterparts, and is why China dominates product manufacturing/design in so many industries.

===
Note that SpaceX did all this on a development budget of less than $1Billion.

One might also consider the example of electric/autonomous cars, which was recently opened up to private investment.
So far 10 startups have been funded with over $6billion by the Chinese tech billionaires and VC companies.

If I look at the situation, if I were a Chinese tech billionaire looking to build a reusable rocket company, I'd base it in Shenzhen as it's the centre of China's manufacturing/drone/hardware/telecoms industry, which also has a significant presence in terms of internet/software/biotech.

Shenzhen is an expensive city, but the environment there is the most daring/risk-taking in China and they operate at Shenzhen speed all the time. There's also easy access to the port and then to Wenchang Space Launch Centre.

Alternatively, Beijing and Chengdu also look like viable options because of the existing base of aerospace expertise to draw upon.

 

[Equation]

Yes. All past and current space vehicles are essentially experimental systems because of the comparatively small number of launches and very high costs. Just look at the extra-ordinary high amount of work that has to go into prepping a rocket launch.

But SpaceX have broken the mold by applying mass-production design, production, launch methodologies, and by demonstrating the viability of reusable rockets. They're already past the point where the Merlin Engine is the most used rocket engine in history with the longest track record, yet their launch curve is still ramping upwards.

This means the LM-5/6/7 rocket family will be decisively superceded in terms of launch costs - unless they make the rockets reusable and can mass-produce as well.

I give it about 4 years before SpaceX upend the industry and start high-volume low-cost commercial launches with reusable rockets. So let's not talk about the LM-5/6/7 series being used for the next few decades.

===
Now there is also a discussion about what qualifies as mass production. So let's go with the suggested figure of 50 LM rockets as qualifying as mass production, even though I disagree with it.

50 rockets over 5 years is only 10 rockets per year. If we look at labour hours, they typically halve every 10-20 repetitions in the shipbuilding world. So that would mean labour efficiency would only half 3x (to 12.5% of the initial labour cost) by the end of that 5 year period.

But if we look at SpaceX, they would get to that point in around 2years whereas LM would still be stuck at around 40%-50% of initial labour cost.

Of course, there are other costs to consider, but it gives us a flavour for what happens with scale and standardisation.

And the funny thing is, this is the sort of thing that Chinese companies (commercial and military) normally do to their US/European counterparts, and is why China dominates product manufacturing/design in so many industries.

===
Note that SpaceX did all this on a development budget of less than $1Billion.

One might also consider the example of electric/autonomous cars, which was recently opened up to private investment.
So far 10 startups have been funded with over $6billion by the Chinese tech billionaires and VC companies.

If I look at the situation, if I were a Chinese tech billionaire looking to build a reusable rocket company, I'd base it in Shenzhen as it's the centre of China's manufacturing/drone/hardware/telecoms industry, which also has a significant presence in terms of internet/software/biotech.

Shenzhen is an expensive city, but the environment there is the most daring/risk-taking in China and they operate at Shenzhen speed all the time. There's also easy access to the port and then to Wenchang Space Launch Centre.

Alternatively, Beijing and Chengdu also look like viable options because of the existing base of aerospace expertise to draw upon.

All good for Space X until they have a disaster and therefore will be very difficult for them to recover. We haven't see a substantiate reuse of the recovery boosters to call it a viable success. Elon Musk Tesla over hyped and over price electric car company hadn't made a profit yet and it even failed big time trying to sell it in China. And now he's trying to sell us a hyper loop windowless hi speed magnetic rail? Too many millennials are getting all worked up with Elon Musk and thinking he is the next icon tech "genius" like Steve Jobs. Sorry I just don't buy hype. America's space adventure is still NASA...period. They are the big boys regardless of how many haters complaining about it's bureaucracy and red tape.

 

[AndrewS]

I think SpaceX will still be fine even after they have another disaster. They've already weathered one before, and remember that SpaceX are the only option that NASA has for manned spaceflight. Also note that SpaceX are the only option that the US military have for heavy lift - if the Senate has its way about banning the use of Russian rocket engines.

So we've seen 2 Falcon rockets been recovered - which is enough to demonstrate that recovery is viable. The next step is building a track record for reusability which is the next challenge. Hence my comment on a 4 year timeframe for SpaceX to demonstrate reusability.

They've also already demonstrated a track record for cost and technology leadership in the industry, and are backed by investors who can see this who are also willing to invest billions more in SpaceX.

===

And profitability is normally the wrong metric when we're talking about new technologies.

Tesla did correctly identify that with current battery technology - the only way to sell hugely overpriced cars with expensive batteries to consumers - was to market them as a luxury eco good.

Their current car models have very healthy profit margins, but the company was running at a loss because they were spending heavily on R&D and ramping up production.

Also note that Tesla should be profitable this year, and will shortly have the capacity to churn out 500,000 affordable vehicles every year.

In comparison, BYD in Shenzhen also had the same problem, but decided to focus on heavily utilised buses with huge battery packs, which is also a large and viable industry for electric vehicles.

 

[AndrewS]

My point is that if China were to open up the space industry to private investment, we would probably see a rush of tech entrepreneurs into the sector.

We can clearly see that this has already happened in the electric/autonomous vehicle sector - and all the analysts agree that Chinese companies probably will end up with global technology and cost leadership in the industry - irrespective of anything that Tesla does.

 

[Equation]

I think SpaceX will still be fine even after they have another disaster. They've already weathered one before, and remember that SpaceX are the only option that NASA has for manned spaceflight. Also note that SpaceX are the only option that the US military have for heavy lift - if the Senate has its way about banning the use of Russian rocket engines.

So we've seen 2 Falcon rockets been recovered - which is enough to demonstrate that recovery is viable. The next step is building a track record for reusability which is the next challenge. Hence my comment on a 4 year timeframe for SpaceX to demonstrate reusability.

They've also already demonstrated a track record for cost and technology leadership in the industry, and are backed by investors who can see this who are also willing to invest billions more in SpaceX.

===

And profitability is normally the wrong metric when we're talking about new technologies.

Tesla did correctly identify that with current battery technology - the only way to sell hugely overpriced cars with expensive batteries to consumers - was to market them as a luxury eco good.

Their current car models have very healthy profit margins, but the company was running at a loss because they were spending heavily on R&D and ramping up production.

Also note that Tesla should be profitable this year, and will shortly have the capacity to churn out 500,000 affordable vehicles every year.

In comparison, BYD in Shenzhen also had the same problem, but decided to focus on heavily utilised buses with huge battery packs, which is also a large and viable industry for electric vehicles.

Buses are a different breed than say family eco friendly luxury cars. Bottom line, why would anybody wants to pay $60-80K for an electric car and one can get a an eco friendly hybrid fuel car for under $40K easily? I doubt it Tesla could churn out 500,000 cars a year anytime soon when they needed buyers with deep pockets to stay afloat.

My point is that if China were to open up the space industry to private investment, we would probably see a rush of tech entrepreneurs into the sector.

We can clearly see that this has already happened in the electric/autonomous vehicle sector - and all the analysts agree that Chinese companies probably will end up with global technology and cost leadership in the industry - irrespective of anything that Tesla does.

Rockets are a lot more difficult than an electric car. I don't see any more private space company any where around the world until another 3 or 4 decades from now. The technology just isn't there.

 

[Engineer]

But SpaceX have broken the mold by applying mass-production design, production, launch methodologies, and by demonstrating the viability of reusable rockets. They're already past the point where the Merlin Engine is the most used rocket engine in history with the longest track record, yet their launch curve is still ramping upwards...

No they haven't, and Merlin Engine isn't the most used rocket engine, not even close.

... Insult Removed ...

In 2015, China had 19 launches with no failure, whereas Space X only had 6 successful launches. Russia had 15 successful launches and that is still more than twice as many as Space X's. Tell me about mass-production when Space X actually launches that many rockets in one year.

MOD COMMENT:

Engineer, you know better than to post these types of insulting comments. Any more will result in a Warning and then a time out.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I think SpaceX will still be fine even after they have another disaster. They've already weathered one before, and remember that SpaceX are the only option that NASA has for manned spaceflight. Also note that SpaceX are the only option that the US military have for heavy lift - if the Senate has its way about banning the use of Russian rocket engines.

I do agree that is something went wrong they have options to rebuild however I disagree with them being the only option.
Spacex is Hardly the only option. ULA has hit a snag but has options. The biggest issue of the Russian Engines is Military launches which also use the Atlas V.
As such Option one would be to Focus Military launches on the Delta Series.
Option two was recently pushed by congress which is to re engine the Atlas with Aerojet Rocketdyne engines,
Option Three which seems favored by ULA is to keep useing the stock of Russian Engines until They are ready for the Vulcan series in a few years.
And The Whole point of the Commercial crew program which is how SpaceX really has the world buzzing was to open competition creating options. rather than one manned space capsule the US would have three or even more.
The Dragon would seem to be the leader in this as by all accounts it has yet to be delayed meaning that by the middle of next year it should be carrying a crew.
The other main option is boeing CST 100 which does use Atlas V and n theory could use Delta, Falcon and eventually Vulcan but again for a nasa Mission it however has been delayed.

The third manned is the troubled Orion which would be launch able on either Atlas ( eventually Vulcan) or SLS.But Orion is intended for support of longer range goals. assuming that they can get congress to fund them. In other words Unneeded bits like the space John are not found on CST or Dragon well Orion is the space camper.

Then there is the Dreamchaser as SNC has not given up on it, They got the next round of commercial Cargo however SNC has indicated they are still working on making manned options. Dreamchaser is partnered with JAXA and the ESA and has launch options on Atlas and Ariane 5 ( possibly 6) and Falcon heavy.

So I would hardly say the ONLY hope for US manned return flight. It's just the most Viral option. SpaceX is something like 1 Third Rocket building, 1 third Commercial enterprise One third Viral marketing.
The Key advantage Spacex has had is that it used internal funding as an internal design process taking a holistic approach to the rocket. It's a bit like the Apple model which Musk seems to favor in Tesla.
Rather than building a computer and sourcing from a number of makers Spacex comes in and says here is what you need just plug and play. they want to be the one stop space agency supplying everything you need in one stop.
This differs from other Us or European Agency supply model who get a design by the customer and then have to partner and distribute across political boundaries to build the product and fit other products The First stage might be this maker well the secont that one and the capsule is from this builder well the service module is that other one and the Rockets for the stages might be Company A well the ones for the service module are company C .
Then Adding is the problems we see more and more as micro management steps in on programs take SLS ( and now it seems Atlas) has suffered due to congress mandating engines making stipulated design choices and parts, like the Orion service module being outsourced to the European space agency. Not a european contractor like say Airbus, no the whole European space agency. So a design spun on a design for a low cost high readiness rocket based off the Shuttle boosters and main engines as well as Centaur upper stage has become a headache as the Senate starts making design choices delays and cost overruns.
On the other side
The CNSA is a Wholly operated entity of the CCP, the Long March series of Rockets is already a CCP rocket as the Name references the Party, The Rocket is built by a maker who is owned by the State they are using the internal model under the government. as such they may not be as efficient as Space X or as bold. but they do shave a few middle men from the process and Don't have the larger party mandating design changes by the fact that the rocket is already distributed across the party. I.E. they have the same problem it's just been worked as part of the design.

 

[AndrewS]

@Equation

The 500,000 cars er year is mostly for the Model X which is priced at $35K. That is comfortably below the $40K figure you mention for a hybrid - and note that those hybrids are way behind in terms of the interior information/technology systems as well.

With resuable rockets comes low cost space launches. I wouldn't be surprised if launch costs drop from the current $65million to only $10million in 5-10 years time.

That will spur a boom in space launches, which means room for a bunch more private space companies in the world.

Think of the current Airbus/Boeing duopoly, which COMAC is trying to challenge as there is certainly enough market demand for a third contender.