China's Space Program News Thread

[gelgoog]

yes, still they rely on NASA paying them for ferry flights to ISS using capsules designed under the soviet union, and on selling engines to Lockheed that were also designed under the soviet union? to prevent the previously gargantuan personnel pool from completely fretting away.

What real new success can that pool actually claim since the fall of the USSR?

More bullshit. Ever heard the expression "if it isn't broke don't fix it"? The modern Soyuz 2 rocket has had major changes where it matters. It has fully digital avionics, and it has a staged combustion upper stage engine to increase performance. It also has an enlarged shroud to deliver larger volume commercial payloads. Because it has fully digital avionics, the launch site no longer requires a rotating launch table like the older R-7 rockets and is much simpler and cheaper to maintain. It has more payload mass and volume capability. The modern Soyuz capsule also has fully digital avionics and larger usable internal volume. Lockheed had to buy Russian engines because they could not manufacture anything better. Do you really think they pay the Russians out of the goodness of their own hearts? They bought engines from Russia because it was cheaper and better. They were still using engines originally designed in the 1960s with the Atlas II (H-1 engine).

Because the Proton uses hypergolics, the Russians developed the Angara rocket.

You claim Russia does not have any money and needs NASA to pay them. Well, NASA are ones who did not have any astronaut launch vehicle and had to pay for their ride. Perhaps you wanted Russia to give NASA the ride for free? Russia in 2019 did 25 launches and the USA did 21 launches.

 

[Richard Santos]

BTW, the reason why Russia was able to hold on to a semi-viable space program at all after the fall of the USSR was subsidizing the Russian space program through ISS, ferry flights and engine purchases was a cheaper way for the United States to keep key Russian technical personnel employed in Russia rather than migrating to other countries, such as China, and also to preserve leverage over the post soviet Russian government. Now that china has almost completely caught up with Russia, and Russo-american relation deteriorated to the point where a mere prestige program is no longer much of a leverage, the US is cutting russia loose, and Russia is merely putting a brave face on it.

 

[Richard Santos]

More bullshit. Ever heard the expression "if it isn't broke don't fix it"? The modern Soyuz 2 rocket has had major changes where it matters. It has fully digital avionics, and it has a staged combustion upper stage engine to increase performance. It also has an enlarged shroud to deliver larger volume commercial payloads. Because it has fully digital avionics, the launch site no longer requires a rotating launch table like the older R-7 rockets and is much simpler and cheaper to maintain. It has more payload capability. The modern Soyuz capsule also has fully digital avionics and larger usable internal volume. Lockheed had to buy Russian engines because they could not manufacture anything better. Do you really think they pay the Russians out of the goodness of their own hearts? They bought them from Russia because it was cheaper and better. They were still using engines originally designed in the 1960s with the Atlas II (H-1 engine).

Because the Proton uses hypergolics, they developed the Angara rocket.

You claim Russia does not have any money and needs NASA to pay them. Well, NASA are ones who did not have any astronaut launch vehicle and had to pay for their ride. Perhaps you wanted Russia to give NASA the ride for free? Russia in 2019 did 25 launches and the USA did 21 launches.

how many successful Angara flights have there been? what does the history of missed deadline look like?

If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it is not the same as if it isn’t broke, don’t do anything more with it then what other people are paying you to do.

No, The US paid Russia for space assets to keep as many of the russian staff from working for North korea, Iran, and above all China as possible, and do so as cheaply as possible.

 

[hkbc]

For Russia the demon is poverty, which is not so easy to cast aside.

Russia is not poor, just like Africa is not poor, a lot of Russians and Africans are poor but that's just part of the course when your country's wealth is stolen! China had the advantage of hindsight to not repeat the mistakes brought about during the break up of the Soviet Union, besides the KMT pretty much took everything that wasn't bolted down on the way out of the door, so less to steal!

Anyway, as partners in the moon endeavour, all those American dollars that China gets because American multinationals like to screw over American workers will be used to bankroll things. As you say insecurity, Chinese money, Russian science what's not to be scared of!

 

[gelgoog]

BTW, the reason why Russia was able to hold on to a semi-viable space program at all after the fall of the USSR was subsidizing the Russian space program through ISS, ferry flights and engine purchases was a cheaper way for the United States to keep key Russian technical personnel employed in Russia rather than migrating to other countries, such as China, and also to preserve leverage over the post soviet Russian government. Now that china has almost completely caught up with Russia, and Russo-american relation deteriorated to the point where a mere prestige program is no longer much of a leverage, the US is cutting russia loose, and Russia is merely putting a brave face on it.

how many successful Angara flights have there been? what does the history of missed deadline look like?
No, The US paid Russia for space assets to keep as many of the russian staff from working for North korea, Iran, and above all China as possible.

You believe too much American propaganda. The truth is the Space Station Freedom program was way over budget and the US got Europe and Russia into the ISS program to save money building the thing and to prevent the whole thing from being cancelled by Congress. Did the USA also buy the Harmony and Tranquility modules from Italy to prevent Italian scientists from working for Iran, China, or North Korea?

It also worked so well in prevent tech transfers to China that China got their own clone of the RD-191, the YF-100, their own clone of the Soyuz, the Shenzhou, their own clone of the TKS FCB spacecraft, the Tianhe, and their own clone of the Orlan spacesuit, the Haiying.

They have not had any rush to get Angara working because Proton worked well enough for what they needed. It is just a nice thing to have. In fact, all Angara flights made so far have been successful. Even the ones they did with South Korea on the Naro rocket. At least the Russian part of the rocket worked fine that is.

 

[Richard Santos]

space station freedom was a pure cold war program that would have been cancelled at the end of the cold war if the Clinton administration didn’t need an cover to subsidize the Russian space program. The prevailing opinion in the US at the time was the Space station was a waste of money that is unlikely to generate returns commensurate with its costs, and better returns can be gained with real big science programs like the Superconducting super collider, which would have preserved American supremacy in theoretical physics.

Instead, the SSC was cut to subsidizing the international space station because keeping soviet rocket expertise from emigrating was considered a higher priority than not ceding superiority in theoretical physics to the Europeans.

 

[gelgoog]

LOL. Hook, line, and sinker. Why are Europe and Japan in the ISS then? Wasn't it just about preventing Soviet scientists from going to North Korea? The same North Korea which got Ukrainian RD-250 engines for their ICBMs just a couple years back. Do you think they could build a whole new rocket together with a new propellant manufacturing facility just in a couple years? Most countries cannot even manufacture UDMH. They were probably working on that program for over a decade. Maybe two.

Had the station been cancelled, the Shuttle would have been canceled, and most of NASA and its contractors would have been made redundant. That is why they got the other countries in the program. NASA dollars are a major part of US pork barrel politics and is why we have things like the SLS. It was perceived that the politician which cancelled those programs would lose the votes in Florida, Alabama, and possibly other states like California.

 

[Richard Santos]

LOL. Hook, line, and sinker. Why are Europe and Japan in the ISS then? Wasn't it just about preventing Soviet scientists from going to North Korea? The same North Korea which got Ukrainian RD-250 engines for their ICBMs just a couple years back. Do you think they could build a whole new rocket together with a new propellant manufacturing facility just in a couple years? Most countries cannot even manufacture UDMH. They were probably working on that program for over a decade. Maybe two.

Had the station been cancelled, the Shuttle would have been canceled, and most of NASA and its contractors would have been made redundant. That is why they got the other countries in the program. NASA dollars are a major part of US pork barrel politics and is why we have things like the SLS.

No, international space station needed other country’s participation to help make it cheaper for the US. But make no mistake, it if were not for American determination to keep Soviet rocketry expertise employed, there would be no international space station.

The only reason why it seems, in retrospect, the space shuttle program needed to have been kept going was because due contingent circumstances, namely the international space station, left no immediate choice but to keep it going. Right after the Cold War the US was all for cancelling the shuttle all together and replacing it with a new, much more high tech, single stage to orbit reusable space craft. That too got cancelled to enable money to be devoted to keeping space station and shuttle going.

People should remember just how much the space shuttle was also a Cold War program, not a rational reusable space transport program. All the nice story of how accessible space was going to be with the space shuttle was bullshit. The driving design requirement for the space shuttle was the ability to make large cross range corrections during reentry, So it can perform single orbit missions where it would launch from Vandenburg AFB in California, insert a secret large military payload into orbit, and then come back down and land at edwards airforce base after just a single orbit. This requires the shuttle to scoot side ways by about 1600 Kms because earth would have rotated that much underneath it. This is why the shuttle is:
1. So large
2. Have absurdly large wings and tail
Incidentally, the potential ability to use the shuttle as a fractional orbit bombardment platform was also an important design criteria. It was to have the ability to launch a decapitating sneak attack under the guise of space launch.

If it were not for Cold War military requirement, the shuttle would have turned out so much better suited for its eventual use as a manned space ferry.

 

[gelgoog]

Right after the Cold War the US was all for cancelling the shuttle all together and replacing it with a new, much more high tech, single stage to orbit reusable space craft. That too got cancelled to enable money to be devoted to keeping space station and shuttle going.
People should remember just how much the space shuttle was also a Cold War program, not a rational reusable space transport program. All the nice story of how accessible space was going to be with the space shuttle was bullshit. The driving design requirement for the space shuttle was the ability to make large cross range corrections during reentry, So it can perform single orbit missions where it would launch from Vandenburg AFB in California, insert a secret large military payload into orbit, and then come back down and land at edwards airforce base after just a single orbit. This requires the shuttle to scoot side ways by about 1600 Kms because earth would have rotated that much underneath it. This is why the shuttle is:
1. So large
2. Have absurdly large wings
Incidentally, the potential ability to use the shuttle as a fractional orbit bombardment platform was also an important design criteria.

No way. You are talking about Delta Clipper now? That was a Republican program under the SDIO which Bill Clinton basically cancelled as he got into office. It was part of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative so of course it had to be cut. It was replaced with the X-33 and X-34 programs which never went anywhere because when the Republicans got a majority in Congress still under Bill Clinton they knew it was a Clinton Administration program and Al Gore's pet project so they cut it. But neither of those used the Space Shuttle contracting force. The Republicans also killed the single payer healthcare program proposal.

The Space Shuttle was driven by two things. It had to be large enough to carry NRO spy satellites into orbit. It also had to be able to return to launch site in one orbit yes. It was never meant to be an orbital bombardment platform.

It was always meant to be used to build the space station. It was originally proposed by Von Braun to do that when he was still alive.

 

[Richard Santos]

no, it was the shuttle Mk 2 program. delta clipper was a technology demo program, as was x-series space planes. Shuttle Mk 2 was the intended replacement for the shuttle, with none ( or much fewer) of the military mission imposed constraints.
Also, when the original space shuttle was proposed and approved, the US had no long term space station program of any kind. The space station was an ex post justification for the space shuttle.