SpaceX has performed a series of successful vertical landings which demonstrate the technology’s feasibility, but Chinese researchers have rejected the approach, the article said.Deng wrote that the vertical landing system needed carrying extra fuel for landing, which meant rockets could only carry smaller payloads into space....The Chinese launch vehicle academy researchers have said on their website that the parachute-airbag system will be assisted by multiple censors and a sophisticated flight control system to guide the descent. The final goal was to hit a small recovery zone as precisely as the vertical landing technology can achieve.
QuoteThe Chinese launch vehicle academy researchers have said on their website that the parachute-airbag system will be assisted by multiple censors
The Chinese launch vehicle academy researchers have said on their website that the parachute-airbag system will be assisted by multiple censors
Quote from: sanman on 03/17/2017 06:46 AMQuoteThe Chinese launch vehicle academy researchers have said on their website that the parachute-airbag system will be assisted by multiple censorsThose Chinese sure are serious about their censorship!
So it seems that in the comparison of fuel+legs against parachutes+airbags, that the latter is seen as a better option, at least at this juncture.
Deng Xinyu, a researcher on the Chinese rocket recovery programme, said that vertical landing involved many challenges and was extremely difficult to achieve.
Quote from: sanman on 03/17/2017 06:46 AMSo it seems that in the comparison of fuel+legs against parachutes+airbags, that the latter is seen as a better option, at least at this juncture.Neither parachutes or airbags scale well.Not too bad a solution for a smallsat launcher, but starts to get iffy at EELV size (not sure if Vulcan could return whole stage by parachute even if they wanted to). Parachutes and airbags are completely impractical at New Glen let alone ITS size.Also airbags and parachutes add quite a bit off mass, probably not as much mass as the extra fuel for a powered landing, but replacing cheap fuel with expensive hardware and extra refurbishment may end up more expensive in the end.
I think this quote is more telling:QuoteDeng Xinyu, a researcher on the Chinese rocket recovery programme, said that vertical landing involved many challenges and was extremely difficult to achieve.Is the real reason they rejected it because they don't think they can do it?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/17/2017 04:10 PMI think this quote is more telling:QuoteDeng Xinyu, a researcher on the Chinese rocket recovery programme, said that vertical landing involved many challenges and was extremely difficult to achieve.Is the real reason they rejected it because they don't think they can do it?Or not worth doing at this stage. Remember the economic viability of reusability has yet to be demonstrated.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/19/2017 06:47 PMQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/17/2017 04:10 PMI think this quote is more telling:QuoteDeng Xinyu, a researcher on the Chinese rocket recovery programme, said that vertical landing involved many challenges and was extremely difficult to achieve.Is the real reason they rejected it because they don't think they can do it?Or not worth doing at this stage. Remember the economic viability of reusability has yet to be demonstrated.That's kind of like saying "the ability of an aircraft carrrier to win a war has yet to be demonstrated, so we're going to keep sinking all our money into battleships" in 1940.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/19/2017 07:30 PMQuote from: Dalhousie on 03/19/2017 06:47 PMQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/17/2017 04:10 PMI think this quote is more telling:QuoteDeng Xinyu, a researcher on the Chinese rocket recovery programme, said that vertical landing involved many challenges and was extremely difficult to achieve.Is the real reason they rejected it because they don't think they can do it?Or not worth doing at this stage. Remember the economic viability of reusability has yet to be demonstrated.That's kind of like saying "the ability of an aircraft carrrier to win a war has yet to be demonstrated, so we're going to keep sinking all our money into battleships" in 1940.What you are proposing is like saying we should stop all investment in battleships in 1902 because there is some interesting work happening in heavier than air flight in a few places.Note that there is nothing that says that China is not interested in further work this field.They have merely decided that one approach is not viable.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/20/2017 12:02 AMQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/19/2017 07:30 PMQuote from: Dalhousie on 03/19/2017 06:47 PMQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/17/2017 04:10 PMI think this quote is more telling:QuoteDeng Xinyu, a researcher on the Chinese rocket recovery programme, said that vertical landing involved many challenges and was extremely difficult to achieve.Is the real reason they rejected it because they don't think they can do it?Or not worth doing at this stage. Remember the economic viability of reusability has yet to be demonstrated.That's kind of like saying "the ability of an aircraft carrrier to win a war has yet to be demonstrated, so we're going to keep sinking all our money into battleships" in 1940.What you are proposing is like saying we should stop all investment in battleships in 1902 because there is some interesting work happening in heavier than air flight in a few places.Note that there is nothing that says that China is not interested in further work this field.They have merely decided that one approach is not viable. In 1902, it would be 40 years before aircraft carriers were demonstrated to win wars. In 1940, that would be demonstrated within 5 years.So, you think it's 1902 with respect to reusable rockets and I think it's 1940. In other words, if reusable rockets demonstrate economic viability within 5 years, I'm right. If they demonstrate economic viability only after 40 more years, you're right.Place your bets now. SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Arianespace, Russia, and China have placed theirs.
The Chinese are doing reusability to lower their domestic launch costs. They not competiting inter nationally, so any saving is a success.