China's Space Program News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
LOL! I love how you spin "uncontrolled" into "automatic". Sure, the LM5 core stage will automatically reenter the atmosphere. What's important is that it will break up into dust during reentry.
It is controlled because they have full control over the location of descent. Your definition of "dust" must includes 12m long pieces:
1620227795700.png
Here is another particle of dust that fell in Cote d'Ivoire:
1620227880700.png
First, on your false assertion, ISS begs to differ, along with Hubble. They both weight more than 10 tons.
Wow. This confirms that you don't even understand what controlled re-entry is. Let this discussion stand as a monument to your ignorance.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is entirely possible - and in fact, probable given the circumstances - that after a similar stage last May disintegrated over villages in Côte d'Ivoire CALT may have modified the vehicle to not have this happen again. So, we may be simply witnessing now a malfunction of the de-orbit process, rather than wanton abandon.
I would find that credible if they reported a malfunction. But they didn't, so I have to assume all went as planned.
 

Engineer

Major
It is controlled because they have full control over the location of descent. Your definition of "dust" must includes 12m long pieces:
Here is another particle of dust that fell in Cote d'Ivoire:
So, where is the rest of the rocket? Disintegration of the core stage was mostly successful. All that left to do is to ensure that disintegration will be a complete success.

Wow. This confirms that you don't even understand what controlled re-entry is. Let this discussion stand as a monument to your ignorance.
No. Let this discussion stand as a monument to your ignorance, as you proclaimed so loudly that nothing over 10 tons was a) left intentionally in orbit b) to reenter without control. Both ISS and Hubble are over 10 tons. By default, both will reenter the atmosphere without control unless active intervention ($$$) is taken.
 

anzha

Senior Member
Registered Member
You misspelled achievement. Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) is kind of a holy grail of rocket design. The achievement here is that the LM5 core stage reached orbit and making LM5 the closest thing to SSTO launcher since the Space Shuttle. It is something to be celebrated.

If I may, and I am NOT getting into the slapfest here: China is going to do what China does and America is going to do what America does. Criticism will - and does - happen both ways. The media is going to overhype and underplay things to suit their owners' agendas, Chinese and American.

That said, the Atlas V core stage can - iirc - place itself into orbit without boosters. However, it has no significant payload when doing so. The Atlas boosters have been able to do this even prior to the V. It's just...pointless.

These rockets and their capabilities only matter insomuch as they support the goals of the nations using them.

The LM5 is a great achievement and should be celebrated as such. Tianhe's launch is awesome. The more nations we have in space, the better for the human race, and it will spur on those who have become complacent.
 
Time for an ASAT test!

Or maybe the LM-5B core is secretly a test for a new platform for surprise strategic stike LOL (thus not a coincidence it happenes to fly over two or the largest US cities)
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
China has ratified all relevant space treaties(other than the Moon agreement, but no actual space powers did that anyway), and is an active member of all UN GA committees (incl. 4th committee and certainly Committee on Peaceful Uses of the Outer Space). China is active at promulgating prospective future space legislation and promoting rule of law in Outer Space (see, for example, joint PAROS initiative from Russia and China).
As you can see, China is certainly an active member of "International Space community". Unless you are of opinion that Washinton, DC is a world capital...

Ratification means inclusion of corresponding treaties into the Chinese legal system by the National People's Congress. (PRC constitution, art. 67; PRC Law on procedure for concluding treaties, art.7 & art.11)
As far as I know, that's quite an authority in China.

Next, nowadays China is becoming fairly active in opposing to US with its "like-minded partners" in their attempts to legislate something in their own small circle. Countering these attempts includes opinion of the international community. Much(if not most) of this very community lives within 41 degrees latitude, and thus is theoretically affected. Real risks may not be that important here(let's face it, they're extremely low). Attitude, however, is: you either care about other countries, or you do not.
Thus, as you can see reputation and messaging is important.

If Liability convention will be triggered on may, 8th - believe me, suit will happen immediately, and it is going to be quite an embarrassing experience. See Soviet debacle with Cosmos 954...which was actually settled through diplomatic(not legal) means, but still was a fairly significant blow to the international reputation of Soviet space program.

Thus, I reinstate that I am of opinion that it's an unfortunate event, especially for a civilian space station. It is a very obvious point of concern(and attack for US&aligned countries), one which hopefully will be avoided in the future.
and @longmarch

To both of you, let's not be carried away by the "international law" thing from the original subject.

The original subject was that somebody here put more blame/responsibility on Chinese space program than the western counterparts making the debris issue somehow unique to China, or making it something that China MUST address more urgent than others.

The counter argument made by many members are that China's responsibility is NO more than the west, neither less of course if China signed up to a treaty.

So if I may rephrase the post by @longmarch, the more accurate way to say is "China doesn't care any more or less than the west", and shouldn't. And I fully believe that in the heat of debate with an obvious troll, it is unavoidable to make statement that may lead to misinterpretation.

To @Gloire_bb, I understand that your reply about the law was meant for the effect like my rephrasing above.

I believe both of you have good intentions, so I ask you to drop the matter and move on.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I feel that while the Long March 5B’s uncontrolled reentry is less than ideal, western media ha accentuated the negative with panic inducing headlines. Even the actual articles state that the risk of actual collision is small, but does anyone actually read past the headlines these days?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top