Author Topic: SLS vs. CZ-9  (Read 6988 times)

Offline Moon Base

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
SLS vs. CZ-9
« on: 03/03/2014 03:16 am »
comments ?
image creator would appreciate any error found



Edit: Please *attach* pictures, don't embed huge ones. Img tags removed, OP can attach if they wish.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 02:00 pm by Moon Base »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #1 on: 03/03/2014 03:43 am »
comments ?
image creator would like to know if there is any error in it


http://ww4.sinaimg.cn/mw1024/5f50f3afgw1ee0d21r6unj20rs0zkjx7.jpg

Edit: Please *attach* pictures, don't embed huge ones. Img tags removed, OP can attach if they wish.

If you want feedback about accuracy, this might be a better place to post - the Modeling forum: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=59.0

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33041
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 21932
  • Likes Given: 4007
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #2 on: 03/03/2014 03:44 am »
CZ-5 isn't being used for crewed launch. The CZ-9 is the version with solid boosters. Another version has liquid boosters with another version only a 100 t payload.

Your version of SLS Block 2 is using an advanced solid booster, in which case you should use images of ATK's Dark Knight boosters. Ignore the core configuration in the image below, it is out of date. Like CZ-9, another version of SLS Block 2 could have liquid boosters.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 05:44 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline M129K

Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #3 on: 03/03/2014 09:12 am »
CZ-5 isn't being used for crewed launch. The CZ-9 is the version with solid boosters. Another version has liquid boosters with another version only a 100 t payload.

Your version of SLS Block 2 is using an advanced solid booster, in which case you should use images of ATK's Dark Knight boosters. Ignore the core configuration in the image below, it is out of date. Like CZ-9, another version of SLS Block 2 could have liquid boosters.
I can see only four engines on this SLS so liquid boosters might be more accurate to use here.

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33041
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 21932
  • Likes Given: 4007
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #4 on: 03/04/2014 04:31 am »
I can see only four engines on this SLS so liquid boosters might be more accurate to use here.

As the fifth engine is in the middle, it might be hidden from view at that angle. :-) If not, it would probably be easier to add another RS-25 engine to the core than having to redraw a new booster.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6626
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1582
  • Likes Given: 1503
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #5 on: 07/30/2022 03:39 am »
https://twitter.com/CNSpaceflight/status/1517886026101915648

It looks like maybe dual launches of CZ-5DY in 2030 are the plan for a Chinese lunar mission? CZ-9 doesn't appear until 2035?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Liked: 3729
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #6 on: 07/30/2022 06:26 am »
It looks like maybe dual launches of CZ-5DY in 2030 are the plan for a Chinese lunar mission? CZ-9 doesn't appear until 2035?

Dual Long March 5 launches have been the nominal human lunar landing architecture in industry presentations, especially by Long Lehao, until Long March 9 (reusable or otherwise) is ready.  But there’s no evidence (that I know of) that China’s government has committed to a Long March 5 lunar architecture or to a human lunar landing before 2036.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2022 09:03 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6351
  • Liked: 8934
  • Likes Given: 873
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #7 on: 07/30/2022 06:57 am »
This is an old thread from 2014, worth pointing out that while SLS didn't change much in the 8 years since, China has already changed CZ-9's design to be similar to Starship:

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNSpaceflight/status/1546783064306507776

Quote
2 series of reusables with methalox engines.
1: Diameter 5m, first time been seen?
2: Diameter 10.6m, 3-stage Long March 9 and a 2-stage variant. Mass: 4122t; Thrust: 5200t with 26 200t Raptor-like engines; LTO: 50t; LEO: 150t



China could shift to fully reusable super heavy-launcher in wake of Starship

Quote from: SpaceNews
China’s launch vehicle makers appear to be designing a fully reusable version of the Long March 9 super heavy-lift rocket needed for future megaprojects.

The emergence of plans for new reusable methane-liquid oxygen launch vehicles to be ready for 2035 suggests that China is looking to make significant changes to its space transportation plans.

China’s government last year signaled approval for the continued development of a super heavy-lift launcher, known as the Long March 9. The long-planned, expendable launcher is planned to be operational by 2030, in time to facilitate Chinese megaprojects including the International Lunar Research Station.



https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1550467553339838466

Quote
Interesting. Smart move by China. Expendable rockets have no future.

Online Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 796
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 196
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: SLS vs. CZ-9
« Reply #8 on: 07/30/2022 04:13 pm »
I know that the SLS uses Space Shuttle technology, but is the Long March 9 intended to utilize brand new rocket engines for the uppermost stage under study, since it is to be biggest Chinese SLV to be conceived?

Tags: SLS long march 9 Moon 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1