China's Space Program Thread II

[Temstar]

The wire recovery method might still come up useful in other cases. For examples there are rumours that CALT is considering recovery for the upper stage for LM-10 family as well. One of the problem with recovering upper stage is since upper stage engines have to be vacuum optimized they generally have very large nozzles which makes any leg based solution problematic. You'll avoid that problem if you use the wire recovery method and since the upper stage is going to be much smaller you could conceivably recover upper stages of even very large rockets like LM-9. Deadweight on upper stages also impact the rocket's overall delta-V much more harshly than first stage due to the rocket equation so if you are going to recover the upper stage, having a method that adds as little weight in recovery hardware as possible is a big benefit.

The fact that wire recovery method can easily accommodate a whole range of rocket diameters is another bonus that could help with this. A whole bunch of rockets could share a single set of recovery ships.

 

[Blitzo]

The wire recovery method might still come up useful in other cases. For examples there are rumours that CALT is considering recovery for the upper stage for LM-10 family as well. One of the problem with recovering upper stage is since upper stage engines have to be vacuum optimized they generally have very large nozzles which makes any leg based solution problematic. You'll avoid that problem if you use the wire recovery method and since the upper stage is going to be much smaller you could conceivably recover upper stages of even very large rockets like LM-9.

This could actually be viable, if they are able to actually do the hard part of developing an upper stage that can survive re-entry.

The fact that wire recovery method can easily accommodate a whole range of rocket diameters is another bonus that could help with this. A whole bunch of rockets could share a single set of recovery ships.

Technically a single sized SpaceX or Blue Origin style (or iSpace, etc) flat recovery barge can also accommodate multiple rocket types that use legs to land as well; one only needs to develop a ship that is adequately sized for the largest rocket of a set, and then all the slightly smaller ones will also be able to land on the recovery barge.

 

[nativechicken]

This could actually be viable, if they are able to actually do the hard part of developing an upper stage that can survive re-entry.

Technically a single sized SpaceX or Blue Origin style (or iSpace, etc) flat recovery barge can also accommodate multiple rocket types that use legs to land as well; one only needs to develop a ship that is adequately sized for the largest rocket of a set, and then all the slightly smaller ones will also be able to land on the recovery barge.

The biggest problem with the landing-leg mode for touchdown on an offshore platform is that the first stage has a large length-to-diameter ratio (pencil-shaped vehicle), which makes it prone to tipping over in moderately high sea states. The net-capture scheme is much better.
The issue with the net is that it imposes a height limit on the lander. The current CZ-10B first stage appears to be around 40 meters tall. My personal estimate for the net-receiving platform height is about 70 meters. The CZ-10C first stage looks to be in the 50+ meter range, so the net platform would probably need to be 85–90 meters tall.
I believe that a net platform capable of recovering the CZ-10C first stage would most likely also be able to recover the CZ-9 first stage (since that stage is also in the 53–56 meter height range).

 

[Tomboy]

Well, they can tweak it to further increase the mass efficiency (common bulkheads, engine mass and ISP, optimum aerodynamic length etc.?) but at the end of the day it's still going to be a 5-metre diameter vechicle with many CZ-10 family tech; perhaps optimum mass efficiencies will be reserved for the future 7-metre class vehicle. And the true mass delivery truck to LEO (possibly also lunar) will be the various versions of CZ-9 in 5-7 years. They'll eventually have a range of vehicles to cover the complete mass-delivery and economic-efficiency spectrum: "right vechicle for the right price" rather than the one-size-fits-all hype for Starship (I don't think serious SpaceX insiders really believe that a LEO mass truck is the best option for interplanetary travel via refueling of cryogenic propellants; build dedicated cis-lunar and interplanetary transports for the love of [insert deity name here]).

CZ-10C already uses common bulkheads for tanks, perhaps YF-219 could also be further improved for more payload. Though insiders and some of the more credible posters like Cute Orca seems to be quite pessimistic on whether Chinese LVs could ever reach the level of weight reduction and optimisation of Falcon 9 which is rather concerning given how this might extrapolate to other related industries like commercial and more importantly military aviation.

Also, IMO no one believes Starship is going to be used for anything other than LEO truck which is arguably far more important anyways. Timely and mass access to LEO should be considered no less strategic than free access to the sea or air especially with the industrialisation and militarisation of space and unfortunately China doesn't seem to be catching up quickly enough here.

But hey, anything is better than nothing for the current situation especially that CZ-10C might be one of the first commercially viable and somewhat globally competitive LV to come out of China within the near future along with the alleged 20t reuse "full" CZ-12B and ZQ-3A.