China's Space Program News Thread


FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member
I won't trust anything you say too much.
This is to educate neutral audiences, not you. The neutral, rational audience can easily see that I am using peer reviewed, sourced reports and data while you aren't, and providing actual calculations while you can't.

You have already shown that you are prone to confuse the issues by throwing wildly incoherent unrelated facts or statements around. I can smell BS a mile away.
apparently not since you got conned by Elo.n Mu.sk, Mars One and Rob.ert Zub.rin vaporware about how Mars is 'suitable' for life.

You are blinded too much by the thought of harvesting unlimited energy from the perpetual heat and solar energy on Venus and Mercury that you did not
Which is founded on known engineering principles such as heat engines and solar panels, and doesn't require unobtainium or Star Trek tech like 500 m wind turbines.
think of the difficulty or impossibility of inserting humans safely into the blazing hot furnace that is the surface of Venus and Mercury (the day side. The night side is frigid cold not too far away from absolute zero and you won't be interested anyway because no solar power.) That difficulty/impossibility of making a safe landing alone precludes any further duscussion on the matter .
I've already proven, with sources, that Venus has an atmospheric altitude where pressure and temperature is Earth-like, and air is bouyant. You also don't seem to understand how thermal insulators and powered heat exchangers work. A powered heat exchanger is also called an 'air conditioner'.
Frankly, I am shocked that you can make such a proposal. Venus and Mercury are only for robotic landing and exploration.
So is Mars except Mars also has zero potential for even high powered robotic missions i.e local industrial production, while Venus and Mercury actually have the power to sustain such an operation.
I can only think you must be one of those individuals whose area of competency and expertise lies within the narrow confines of their work . Out of that, they know very little or nothing.
LMAO.
Period. I am done on this topic.
No problem, I've already schooled you. Take this as free education.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Copy paste from 9ifly regarding solid rocket booster development:

《固体火箭发动机技术发展和面临的关键技术问题》:田维平,王立武,王 伟( 中国航天科技集团有限公司第四研究院,西安)
对于航天运载与助推领域,大型化是固体火箭发动机的发展目标。一方面,发展先进整体式大型固体火箭发动机,突破纤维壳体、大型柔性喷管等技术,实现发动机直径 3.5 m、推力 500 t、工作时间 120 s、质量比≥0.93,为全固体运载火箭提供高性能基础级动力;另一方面,发展大型金属壳体分段式固体火箭发动机,突破分段燃烧室对接、大流量高可靠矢量喷管等技术,实现发动机直径 3.5 m、5 段式、推力 1500 t、工作时间120 s、质量比 0.86,为重型运载火箭提供高可靠助推动力

CASC 4th academy's two parallel developments of Solid Rocket Booster:
  1. 500t monolithic SRB as the 1st stage of full solid launch vehicle.
  2. Metal casing segmented SRB, 3.5m diameter, 5 segments, 1500t thrust, burn time 120s, for heavy lift launch vehicle.
It seems that, regardless the final choice of CZ-9, CASC is determined and financed to acquire the capability of building a SLS/Ares type of heavy lift. This also means that YF-90 will complete its development even regardless what CZ-9 uses for its 2nd stage (120t or YF-90).

The 5 segment SRB is equal in thrust to the proposed SLS' 5 segment SRB, but the burn time is half. Meaning the way CASC uses SRB in its envisioned SLS equivalent is very different.
 
Last edited:

OppositeDay

Junior Member
Registered Member
Copy paste from 9ifly regarding solid rocket booster development:

《固体火箭发动机技术发展和面临的关键技术问题》:田维平,王立武,王 伟( 中国航天科技集团有限公司第四研究院,西安)
对于航天运载与助推领域,大型化是固体火箭发动机的发展目标。一方面,发展先进整体式大型固体火箭发动机,突破纤维壳体、大型柔性喷管等技术,实现发动机直径 3.5 m、推力 500 t、工作时间 120 s、质量比≥0.93,为全固体运载火箭提供高性能基础级动力;另一方面,发展大型金属壳体分段式固体火箭发动机,突破分段燃烧室对接、大流量高可靠矢量喷管等技术,实现发动机直径 3.5 m、5 段式、推力 1500 t、工作时间120 s、质量比 0.86,为重型运载火箭提供高可靠助推动力

CASC 4th academy's two parallel developments of Solid Rocket Booster:
  1. 500t monolithic SRB as the 1st stage of full solid launch vehicle.
  2. Metal casing segmented SRB, 3.5m diameter, 5 segments, 1500t thrust, burn time 120s, for heavy lift launch vehicle.
It seems that, regardless the final choice of CZ-9, CASC is determined and financed to acquire the capability of building a SLS/Ares type of heavy lift. This also means that YF-90 will complete its development even regardless what CZ-9 uses for its 2nd stage (120t or YF-90).

The 5 segment SRB is equal in thrust to the proposed SLS' 5 segment SRB, but the burn time is half. Meaning the way CASC uses SRB in its envisioned SLS equivalent is very different.

Also confirms the less than 7% dry mass ratio @Temstar calculated earlier in the thread.

The dry mass ratio for the planned metal cased SRB is 14%.

Assuming China is massively expanding its ICBM arsenal, can a solid fuel core stage shared between the ICBM programme and civilian rockets be more economical than a reusable liquid fuel core stage in virtue of the economy of scale?
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Assuming China is massively expanding its ICBM arsenal, can a solid fuel core stage shared between the ICBM programme and civilian rockets be more economical than a reusable liquid fuel core stage in virtue of the economy of scale?
Your assumption is to use the number in ICBM to lower the unit cost of the booster, so the civilian solid launcher can enjoy a competitive price with reusable liquid rocket.

I would think it is the opposite. That China want to use the number of civilian launches to lower the cost for ICBMs. The Chinese thinking is that military application is pure cost, if not used any weapon is a "waste". To minimize that necessary "waste" is to find usage in profitable civilian application.

This can be seen in that China is the only country that is actively developing solid launching vehicles comparable to liquid launchers, such as CZ-11, and Quizhou series. How large that "scale" is enough to compete with reusable liquid rocket, and whether that is the primary goal are different questions. IMO, I don't think that is the purpose, but a by-product it become competitive. The primary goal is quick launch capability of large payload to SSO and LEO, a scenario where cost is not a question, such as time of war.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member
Also confirms the less than 7% dry mass ratio @Temstar calculated earlier in the thread.

The dry mass ratio for the planned metal cased SRB is 14%.

Assuming China is massively expanding its ICBM arsenal, can a solid fuel core stage shared be economical than a reusable liquid fuel core stage in virtue of the economy of scale?
Liquid fuel generally has better specific impulse and better energy density, so is more economical. However a mixed solid - liquid rocket with solid first stage and liquid upper stage is possible.
 

Top