• someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 days ago

    For those who don’t follow spaceflight news, the Long March 10B isn’t some small experimental testbed like ESA’s Themis. It’s a production rocket on par with a Falcon 9 for payload capacity.

    The Long March 10 series (10, 10A, 10B) are turning out to be real winners. No in-flight failures, all mission and test goals achieved so far, no R&D schedule delays. After the successful 10B landing there was an announcement that development of a new variant called the 10C would start. It would use methane/oxygen (aka methalox) for propellants in its reusable first stage instead of the kerosene/oxygen (kerolox) of the first stages of the rest of the 10 series.

    The non-reusable second stage of the 10B also uses methalox, so I guess the success of that part of the 10B’s flight gave them confidence. Methane has a big advantage over kerosene in reusable engines because it doesn’t cause nearly as much soot buildup in the plumbing. That will really speed up refurbishment between flights.

    • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nice! I haven’t heard as much in Western press about how fast China is catching up, but it sounds like they’re catching up fast. Has anyone in charge or with power acknowledged it at all, or is it just OS Int people or behind closed door meetings?

      • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 days ago

        China’s national space agency is frustratingly secretive with specific technical details, but they’re fairly open with mission goals, general technical details, and sharing of scientific discoveries.

        China is already well in advance of Russia, sad to say. Russia’s agency Roscosmos is largely coasting on Soviet-era technology. It’s mostly due to budget problems. The longer it goes on, the more institutional knowledge is lost. Quality control is also a total shitshow. A good example is the Nauka docking incident where a new ISS module went out of control after docking, continually firing its thrusters and sending the ISS into an uncontrolled spin until the new module ran out of fuel.

        If it weren’t for SpaceX, I’d say that China’s space program is already more advanced than the US’s collective space program in its current state. It’s very much a heartbreaking thing but the objective fact is that the Falcon 9 and the Crew Dragon spacecraft are incredible engineering feats. Highly capable, highly reliable, an excellent safety record for both. I loathe that company’s ownership with every fibre of my being, but the actual scientists and engineers and technicians working there do know what they’re doing.

        The non-SpaceX side of American spaceflight is an absolute shambles. Explaining why in detail deserves an effortpost of its own. Here’s the highlights.

        • Blue Origin’s brand-new New Glenn rocket exploded on its launch pad in one of the largest non-nuclear artificial explosions in history, wiping out its only launch pad in the process. The consensus is that it’ll be a year before they rebuild the pad and its support equipment. Early public comments from Blue Origin management talk about an unspecified problem with the aft section of the first stage. This is bad news for the next item on this list.

        • The Vulcan-Centaur made by ULA (a 50/50 shotgun wedding joint venture of Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, long story) has had four flights, and in two of them, one of the side booster’s nozzles exploded mid-flight in the same way. By pure dumb luck neither explosion caused a mission failure but the rocket is grounded until the problem is fixed. That rocket’s problems may be doubled because it actually uses the same BE-4 engine as the New Glenn, supplied by Blue Origin. If the BE-4 engine was the cause of the New Glenn explosion, it will keep Vulcan-Centaur grounded even after the booster nozzle explosion issue is resolved. Fun fact: Vulcan-Centaur only exists because the US government decided to stop allowing the American-built Atlas V rocket to use Russian-supplied RD-180 engines. Atlas V has had an excellent reliability and safety record, one of the best in spaceflight history. But jingoism has put an end to that.

        • The SLS rocket (prime contractor is Boeing) that launched the Artemis II flight recently does indeed work, but it costs literally billions per launch and has such a slow construction rate that they can launch roughly once every two years average. It’s basically a disposable rocket built out of old space shuttle parts, because of the usual cozy arrangements between the defence contractors who made the space shuttle and the US senators who control NASA’s budget. New R&D would be expensive and cut into profit margins. SLS is quite possibly the most expensive way to launch anything into space on a per-kilogram basis than any other rocket in history.

        • Boeing’s Starliner crew spacecraft (basically a taxi for space stations) has had three attempts at test flights, and all three were failures. The third had two astronauts aboard. There were so many problems with its thrusters that after finally safely docking to the ISS after a nerve-wracking docking approach with failing thrusters, NASA decided that for the safety of the two astronauts they would stay aboard the ISS and hitch a ride back home on a Crew Dragon instead. Their planned eight day stay on the ISS turned into a nine month stay and the Starliner was sent back down uncrewed for their safety.

        • The ISS is aging fast, equipment failures are building up and maintenance is taking up more and more valuable astronaut time which would better be spent on science. There is no NASA space station replacement planned due to lack of funding by the US senate, and the plans for NASA to use commercial space stations on a contract basis is a shitshow because those commercial stations are delayed with no realistic ETAs.

        • NASA is having problems getting plutonium-238 for nuclear power sources for deep space probes. No RTGs means no exploration beyond Jupiter’s orbit because solar power isn’t practical the farther out you get. They have enough for missions already funded and under construction but nothing beyond that.

        That’s just the tip of the iceberg, I could write a whole lot more. I didn’t include Starship R&D problems because - same caveat of hating the owners but respecting the actual workers there - it’s the most ambitious rocket R&D program ever. They’re trying to build a type of rocket that has literally never been attempted before, a fully-reusable super-heavy-lift system with autonomous vertical landings of both stages. I think it would be unfair to criticize the pace of Starship R&D without having some baseline of a similar program to compare it to, and no such baseline exists. But I do blame their senior management and ownership for offering timeframes to NASA that can’t be guaranteed.

        In comparison to all that, China is doing great. They have a large space station on orbit. They successfully operate upgraded Soyuz-derived crew spacecraft, the Shenzhou. They have a new larger crew vehicle Mengzhou in final testing. Many models of new rockets are under successful development, including the very advanced and so-far-successful Long March 10 series. Their moon landing R&D program is on schedule. Their uncrewed science programs are all successes. The short version is that China isn’t currently doing anything that hasn’t been done before, but they’re doing it all very successfully and with highly advanced domestically-developed technologies.

    • orlando [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      he didn’t invent the net. and honestly, is a rocket motor with landing legs a new idea? the apollo lander used that, and how long before someone found out how useful reusable rockets could be?

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 days ago

          It was the original concept of rockets. Of course people conceptualized them as reusable…how else would you get back. They didn’t start becoming disposable until Von Braun and NASA used space exploration as a vessel to get PR points for developing ICBMs which are never supposed to be used again.

          • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 days ago

            In fairness to 1960s NASA, the computer technology needed for landing big rockets back on Earth just didn’t exist yet. Disposable rockets were unavoidable. It hasn’t been until the last 15 years or so that computers got small and powerful enough to be capable of controlling autonomous vertical landings and still fit onboard.

            One of the early concepts for the space shuttle got around this problem by having flight crew on both the booster and the orbiter, and making them both spaceplanes.

            In this concept, after the orbiter detaches and continues the mission to space, the booster spaceplane is piloted manually in a glide for a runway landing just like the real-life space shuttle was.

            There’s other factors like engines not being able to throttle down far enough with stable thrust for a vertical landing, aka “deep throttling”. Main rocket engines of the Apollo era just couldn’t do it, they pretty much ran at 100% thrust at all times, and that’s way too high for a vertical landing. Engine R&D was barely advanced enough to simply stop engines from exploding. Even today it’s hard to build an engine that’s powerful, fuel-efficient, and also capable of deep throttling. Usually it’s a “pick two” situation.

            • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              The practical limitations all make sense. It’s not like there was really an option, but the development of deep throttling engines and reusable boosters was definitely not helped by the majority of funding going to getting spy satellites in orbit and ICBM development.

              If the goal really was actually space exploration and not warfare/spycraft, we would have likely had some form of reusable rocket way sooner. We just had all these excess rockets laying around that were meant to carry a 2000lb warhead that could also carry 2000lbs worth of dudes.

            • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              The original pre-cuts STS program would have really been something. But once Apollo “won the race” there was no more governmental will in the US to do space research and infrastructure in a more than token way.

              The Falcon 9 isn’t actually throttling that deep either, it’s just lighting a smaller number of engines for the same effect. 3/9 for the boostback, 1/9 for the final landing. But of course running a large number of engines at once presents its own set of problems, as seen in the N1. Falcon Heavy getting 27 rocket engines to work together is another of those legitimately impressive things you do have to hand it to the workers at SpaceX for.

    • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I really hesitate saying shoulders of giants here. I really do. Let’s just go with use his company’s research.

    • the rizzler@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      also whatever little knowledge of physics elon musk may once have had, it’s been washed away along with his bladder control by his hitleresque cocktail of recreational medications

  • Darkhipo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t understand what these two things have in common at all. How does China landing a rocket on a sea platform bear any relation to birthrates of anybody?

      • Marternus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Sure. Never heard any Han talk about the superiority of their ethnic group. Never saw anything that reminds me of KZ just for ethnic minorities. Why do they even have a problem with birthrates, when young people from all over the world want to live in the land of the free?

        • moonkalt [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Kazakhstan-like province just for ethnic minorities? Are you talking about Xinjiang? The vast majority of chinese people who belong to one of the ethnic minorities (there are almost 110 millions of chinese people who belong to one of the 55 ones) don’t even live in Xinjiang (which only have 15 million of them there, so pretty much only 10%).

          And yes, they don’t talk about the superiority of their ethnic group over the minorities indeed (though I’m pretty sure in a country of 1.4 billion people you can find some who will proudly say they are superior to the Hui or some BS), I never heard of such a thing and I spend more time on chinese social media than on western ones bc I know mandarin, there is a classist problem in China nowadays though, prejudice is mostly based on money, most don’t care if their classmate is Miao rather than Han. And before you come with the “well, exactly, the regions where minorities live are way poorer” argument, no they aren’t, you can look it up yourself: Inner Mongolia, Chonqing, Liaoning, Hubei and Hainan (which have high percentage of minorities) are way richer and more developed than regions like Henan, Gansu, Hebei, Sichuan, Anhui, Jiangxi etc (which have less minorities in percentage and are basically over 95% Han), actually Xinjiang itself also has a higher quality of life than most of those, you can look it up on HDI or any similar stats, Tibet and Qinghai are unfortunate exceptions due to geography.

          Also it doesn’t matter whether people want to “live in the land of the free” (I suppose you’re sarcastically talking about China), you can’t immigrate to China at all unless you marry someone there, so regardless of wanting to live there or not, they don’t accept immigration like that. Many westerners say no one wants to move to China (which is obviously untrue) assuming it’s a China’s loss but it doesn’t matter bc they don’t accept foreigners easily, that’s why you see no one moving there. I’m trying to go there to work for a year now but with no success, they only look for English teachers…