There are two many parameters. Tell me which are the main parameters of your interest. I can dig it out for you.
The CZ-2D is a two-stage, liquid-propellant launch vehicle designed mainly for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions, with an LEO payload of 3,700kg. A total of 10 launches were carried out between 1992 and 2008, all from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre.The CZ-2D is generally carries UDMH/N2O4 for all stages. The first stage uses a YF-21B motor consisting of four 65,000kg-thrust YF-20 chambers motors with swinging nozzles. The second stage has a YF-24F rocket motor consisting of one 75,000kg-thrust YF-22B main motor with fixed nozzles, and a YF-23F swivelling venire motor with four chambers motors that produce a total thrust of 4,700kg. The launcher also features a McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing Aerospace) PAM-D upper stage providing 66,700 lb of thrust.The ChangZheng 2D is available in two versions: Type A with a 2.90m-diameter fairing and Type B with a 3.35m-diameter fairing.
2. Does anyone have any specific information on the CZ 4C's third stage? Like number of chambers, thrust, burn time & lsp? And what are the main differences with the CZ 4B's third stage?
About the CZ 2D, CGWIC says it has a YF-21C engine on the first stage and YF-24C on the second stage, Sinodefence says YF-21B on the first stage and YF-24F on the second stage. Which one is right?
I'm looking for CZ-2E images, mainly any images related to the January 25, 1995 Apstar-2 launch failure.Thanks!
Is it possible to identify when this two CZ-2C were launched?
Finally an image from the August 1988 launch.
Here is another question on CZ-2C.....
Quote from: limen4 on 01/03/2011 07:48 pmFinally an image from the August 1988 launch.limen4, that is not the picture of the 1988 launch.In the 05 Aug 1988 launch the spacecraft was of a Jianbing-1A type, i.e. a longer cylindro-conical one, such as in a well-known 1992 launch with Freja. But in the picture we see a typical conical Jianbing-1.I've found seven other images of the launch in question (more than any other!) but I still don't know which launch it was.
The November 1974 failure is the known source of controversy :-)CALT is known to attribute it to CZ-2 and all launches since 1975 to CZ-2C while CASC lists CZ-2C launches from 1982 only -- which makes more sense in my opinion even if the 1982 version differs from 1974/75 only in uprated engines.I believe Stan Black's list inherits from a long http://www.9ifly.cn/thread-407-1-1.html topic at the Chinese forum www.9ifly.cn. Several CZ-3 numbers are still educated guess AFAIK but others has been confirmed by Chinese sources and documents. Short and full numbers are known for some vehicles -- for example, Sven Granh's FSW-14 was launched by CZ-2C number Y903210 or Y10 for short, and the Y802302 = Y2 vehicle pictured above was intended for 19 Aug 1983 launch.By the way, we known the Long March 3 name since 1979 but when exactly Long March 1 and Long March 2 names were announced? When did it become known for sure that FB-1 and CZ-2 both existed? I found that both CZ-2 and CZ-2C names were known by January 1986 but when exactly CZ-2C was identified as the two-stage vehicle used in certain FSW launches?
1978年,在长征二号火箭的基础上,经过适应性的技术改进设计,研制成功一种新的运载火箭——长征二号丙。火箭全长约40米,卫星整流罩最大直径3.35米,起飞质量245吨,近地轨道运载能力达到2.5~3.9吨。
In 1978, the Long March II rocket, based on adaptive technologies through improved design, developed a new launch vehicle - the Long March II C. Rockets for about 40 meters, the satellite fairing diameter 3.35 m, take-off mass 245 tons, carrying capacity of near-Earth orbit 2.5 to 3.9 t.
此次进行发射的“长征二号丙”运载火箭长41.9米,起飞质量245吨。
The launch of the "Long March II C" carrier rocket length 41.9 m, take-off mass 245 tons.
Yet the difference from the Iridium version is easibly visible in photos at the same Taiyuan pad:(upper -- 08 Dec 1997) (lower -- 11 Apr 2007)
Found a mention of the 245 ton version...
Quote from: Liss on 09/10/2011 02:36 pmFound a mention of the 245 ton version...Interestingly, Google gives the following results:+"长征二号丙" +"213吨" (CZ-2C/213t) 2207 results+"长征二号丙" +"233吨" (CZ-2C/233t) 0 result+"长征二号丙" +"245吨" (CZ-2C/245t) 416 resultsI am wondering if 233t is not a typo for 213t in the CGWIC litterature CALT has a table for an improved version (长征二号丙改进型运载火箭)with a mass of 213 thttp://www.calt.com/cpyfw/yzhj/cp/2009123015071136e9f8.html
And the CZ-2D is 250thttp://www.spacechina.com/cpyfw_yhxt_yzhj_Details.shtml?recno=60472
Lift-off Mass (t) 2961.6kN
QuoteYet the difference from the Iridium version is easibly visible in photos at the same Taiyuan pad:(upper -- 08 Dec 1997) (lower -- 11 Apr 2007)From the pictures above, I'd said that the shroud and second stage are identical but the first stage is some 2.5 meters longer (and have fins of course). 2.5 meters layer of propellant is some 26 tons of load. Adding tankage mass and fins we'd probably have 2 more tons. Seems to be generally compatible with total mass increase of 213 to 245 tons rather than to 233 tons. More detailed image of the newest vehicle may provide for more accurate estimate.
I think so.The 172 and 55 ton fuel loads are compatible with durations of engine burns for SJ-11-03 launch which are barely visible in launch center photos.Stage lengths are beyond repair :-)
Quote from: Liss on 09/11/2011 10:34 amI think so.The 172 and 55 ton fuel loads are compatible with durations of engine burns for SJ-11-03 launch which are barely visible in launch center photos.Stage lengths are beyond repair :-)Found a break down of lengths for the CZ-4Ahttp://www.space.cetin.net.cn/docs/ht9902/ht990206.htm
This is what I believe the correct pairings of stages for the current versions of Chinese launchers (as of 2012). Note that I'm using the notation first used on the Ariane family to describe the amount of propellant on each stage when fully fueled. The items in bold are those that are uncertain. Any comments?1st stage of CZ-2C/CZ-3A/CZ-3B(original)/CZ-3C = L1721st stage of CZ-3B/E / CZ-2F = L1861st stage of CZ-2D / CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L1832nd stage of CZ-3A = L302nd stage of CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L352nd stage of CZ-3B / CZ-3B/E / CZ-3C = L452nd stage of CZ-2C / CZ-2D = L552nd stage of CZ-2F = L863rd stage of CZ-3A / CZ-3B / CZ-3B/E / CZ-3C = H183rd stage of CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L12Booster stage of CZ-3B/E / CZ-2F (pre-TG-1) / CZ-3C (with propellant offload?)= L40Booster stage of CZ-3B (original) = L38Booster stage of CZ-2F (2011 version) = L4?
significant progress made on CZ-5 project within the first week of Chinese Lunar Calendar Year of Dragon......Although low quality screen shots from CNTV again......
Someone has posted a Chinese paper that resolves all configuration discrepancies between the different rockets of the CZ-3A series. Basically:CZ-3A - just the one sub-variantCZ-3B:standard version - the original CZ-3B as flown in 1996, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairingCZ-3B/G1 - standard version CZ-3B with the 3.7 m diameter 3700Z dual-payload fairing, only used for the dual COMPASS MEO launches in 2012CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairingCZ-3B/G2 and G3 corresponds to what we call the "CZ-3B/E".CZ-3C - currently just the one sub-variant, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing (contradictory to what I said earlier, the CZ-3C as flown today do not use the lengthened first stage and boosters , but see below)The problems with the different stage configurations (e.g. the pad at Xichang requires mating/de-mating of electric cables and gas ducts on the umbilical arms every time between launches of a CZ-3B/E and a CZ-3C) means that there's a need to standardize the launcher configurations. The "standard length" boosters will be phased out in the near future, leaving these mainstay sub-variants:CZ-3B/G2 (GTO capability 5.5 tonnes)CZ-3B/G3 (GTO capability 5.4 tonnes)CZ-3C/G2 ("CZ-3C/E", or CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters) (GTO capability 3.9 tonnes)plus these special variants:CZ-3B/G3Z - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and extra RCS tanks and thrusters on the 3rd stage, probably for extra-long coast missions. May debut on the Chang'e 3 launch later this year. GTO capability 5.2 tonnes.CZ-3C/G3Z - CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters. GTO capability 3.7 tonnes.CZ-3B/YZ-1 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and the planned GEO direct insertion upper stage (probably the one using RP-1/H2O2 fuel as exhibited in various aerospace exhibits over the past several years), will be used for future COMPASS system launchesCZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launchesMaybe someone can help to check which launch uses the sub-variants as described above?
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/07/2013 04:19 amSomeone has posted a Chinese paper that resolves all configuration discrepancies between the different rockets of the CZ-3A series. Basically:CZ-3A - just the one sub-variantCZ-3B:standard version - the original CZ-3B as flown in 1996, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairingCZ-3B/G1 - standard version CZ-3B with the 3.7 m diameter 3700Z dual-payload fairing, only used for the dual COMPASS MEO launches in 2012CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairingCZ-3B/G2 and G3 corresponds to what we call the "CZ-3B/E".CZ-3C - currently just the one sub-variant, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing (contradictory to what I said earlier, the CZ-3C as flown today do not use the lengthened first stage and boosters , but see below)The problems with the different stage configurations (e.g. the pad at Xichang requires mating/de-mating of electric cables and gas ducts on the umbilical arms every time between launches of a CZ-3B/E and a CZ-3C) means that there's a need to standardize the launcher configurations. The "standard length" boosters will be phased out in the near future, leaving these mainstay sub-variants:CZ-3B/G2 (GTO capability 5.5 tonnes)CZ-3B/G3 (GTO capability 5.4 tonnes)CZ-3C/G2 ("CZ-3C/E", or CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters) (GTO capability 3.9 tonnes)plus these special variants:CZ-3B/G3Z - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and extra RCS tanks and thrusters on the 3rd stage, probably for extra-long coast missions. May debut on the Chang'e 3 launch later this year. GTO capability 5.2 tonnes.CZ-3C/G3Z - CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters. GTO capability 3.7 tonnes.CZ-3B/YZ-1 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and the planned GEO direct insertion upper stage (probably the one using RP-1/H2O2 fuel as exhibited in various aerospace exhibits over the past several years), will be used for future COMPASS system launchesCZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launchesMaybe someone can help to check which launch uses the sub-variants as described above? We should create a pinned topic that lists all of China's launchers (Past, Present, and Future) with their associated launch pads so that way people do not have to keep asking in a new topic every time everyone forgets that one exists.
With the second LM-11 launch possibly coming in this month, I wanted to look up some more information about the LV. The result was pitiful. Could the limited publicity have anything to do with the LV possibly having technology and part commonalities with the DF-41 ballistic missile which is still under active development?
http://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a usermanual but it's a dead link...)The rocket is 2.2m diameter, the same as the DF-3/CZ-1 and as the CZ-7 strapons. But those are CALT products I believe, and I expected the KZ-11 to be a CASIC product (as opposed to CALT's CZ-11) since the marketer Expace is a CASIC subsidiary.Anyone got an idea what the KZ-11 is based on?
Quote from: jcm on 12/18/2016 07:22 amhttp://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a usermanual but it's a dead link...)The rocket is 2.2m diameter, the same as the DF-3/CZ-1 and as the CZ-7 strapons. But those are CALT products I believe, and I expected the KZ-11 to be a CASIC product (as opposed to CALT's CZ-11) since the marketer Expace is a CASIC subsidiary.Anyone got an idea what the KZ-11 is based on?......and I believe KZ-11 is all solid as well so nothing to do with the rockets above.
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/18/2016 12:39 pmQuote from: jcm on 12/18/2016 07:22 amhttp://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a usermanual but it's a dead link...)The rocket is 2.2m diameter, the same as the DF-3/CZ-1 and as the CZ-7 strapons. But those are CALT products I believe, and I expected the KZ-11 to be a CASIC product (as opposed to CALT's CZ-11) since the marketer Expace is a CASIC subsidiary.Anyone got an idea what the KZ-11 is based on?......and I believe KZ-11 is all solid as well so nothing to do with the rockets above. Ah, good point. So to rephrase the question, it seems unlikely that a 2.2m-diameter all-solid launch vehicle ISN'Tbased on a military missile. But I'm not aware of a comparable diameter Chinese solid missile except DF-31/DF-41which I understand is a CALT/ARMT product.
This article has information about various Chinese launchers, including new CZ-9 (see page 4)http://jdse.bit.edu.cn/sktcxbcn/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=20160403&flag=1&journal_id=sktcxbcn&year_id=2016The second author (Long Lehao) was the chief designer of CZ-5, so information here is very credible.
Need help with regards to reading the thread in the sticky https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30673.0There is a list of orbital launches there. Figured out most of the fields (please correct me if wrong) except the two fields coloured red. What does those two fields represent? I guess the second one is the launch timing, but what is the format...can't figure it out. <sequence> <(99-99)> - <launch vehicle> <(factory serial no.)> - <launch date> <(9999:99.999)> - <launch site>, <launch pad> - <payload>Btw, the (factory serial no.) is something i just made up. Another thread describe this as a factory number/serial number. What would be the correct descriptor for this number?..2015205 (07-63) - CZ-3C/YZ-1 (Y11/Y1) - March 30 (1352:30.598) - XSLC, LC2 - Beidou-3 I1 (BDS I1-S)206 (05-46) - CZ-4C (Y30) - June 26 (0622:043.731) - TSLC, LC9 - GF-8207 (07-64) - CZ-3B/YZ-1 (Y26/Y2) - July 25 (1229:04.411) - XSLC, LC2 - Beidou-3 M1-S (Beidou-18); Beidou-3 M2-S (Beidou-19)208 (07-66) - CZ-3B/G2 (Y32) - September 12 (1542:04.418) - XSLC, LC2 - Tongxin Jishu Shiyan Weixing-1209 - CZ-2D (Y21) - September 14 (0442) - JSLC, LC43/603 - Gaofen-9
My browser alarms me that the 9ifly.cn forum is now regarded as a Reported Attack Page. Is there a real threat?
Someone has posted a Chinese paper that resolves all configuration discrepancies between the different rockets of the CZ-3A series. :)Basically:CZ-3A - just the one sub-variantCZ-3B:standard version - the original CZ-3B as flown in 1996, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairingCZ-3B/G1 - standard version CZ-3B with the 3.7 m diameter 3700Z dual-payload fairing, only used for the dual COMPASS MEO launches in 2012CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairingCZ-3B/G2 and G3 corresponds to what we call the "CZ-3B/E".CZ-3C - currently just the one sub-variant, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing (contradictory to what I said earlier, the CZ-3C as flown today do not use the lengthened first stage and boosters , but see below)The problems with the different stage configurations (e.g. the pad at Xichang requires mating/de-mating of electric cables and gas ducts on the umbilical arms every time between launches of a CZ-3B/E and a CZ-3C) means that there's a need to standardize the launcher configurations. The "standard length" boosters will be phased out in the near future, leaving these mainstay sub-variants:CZ-3B/G2 (GTO capability 5.5 tonnes)CZ-3B/G3 (GTO capability 5.4 tonnes)CZ-3C/G2 ("CZ-3C/E", or CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters) (GTO capability 3.9 tonnes)plus these special variants:CZ-3B/G3Z - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and extra RCS tanks and thrusters on the 3rd stage, probably for extra-long coast missions. May debut on the Chang'e 3 launch later this year. GTO capability 5.2 tonnes.CZ-3C/G3Z - CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters. GTO capability 3.7 tonnes.CZ-3B/YZ-1 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and the planned GEO direct insertion upper stage (probably the one using RP-1/H2O2 fuel as exhibited in various aerospace exhibits over the past several years), will be used for future COMPASS system launchesCZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launchesMaybe someone can help to check which launch uses the sub-variants as described above? ;)
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/07/2013 04:19 amSomeone has posted a Chinese paper that resolves all configuration discrepancies between the different rockets of the CZ-3A series. Basically:CZ-3A - just the one sub-variantCZ-3B:standard version - the original CZ-3B as flown in 1996, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairingCZ-3B/G1 - standard version CZ-3B with the 3.7 m diameter 3700Z dual-payload fairing, only used for the dual COMPASS MEO launches in 2012CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairingCZ-3B/G2 and G3 corresponds to what we call the "CZ-3B/E".CZ-3C - currently just the one sub-variant, with standard length first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing (contradictory to what I said earlier, the CZ-3C as flown today do not use the lengthened first stage and boosters , but see below)The problems with the different stage configurations (e.g. the pad at Xichang requires mating/de-mating of electric cables and gas ducts on the umbilical arms every time between launches of a CZ-3B/E and a CZ-3C) means that there's a need to standardize the launcher configurations. The "standard length" boosters will be phased out in the near future, leaving these mainstay sub-variants:CZ-3B/G2 (GTO capability 5.5 tonnes)CZ-3B/G3 (GTO capability 5.4 tonnes)CZ-3C/G2 ("CZ-3C/E", or CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters) (GTO capability 3.9 tonnes)plus these special variants:CZ-3B/G3Z - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and extra RCS tanks and thrusters on the 3rd stage, probably for extra-long coast missions. May debut on the Chang'e 3 launch later this year. GTO capability 5.2 tonnes.CZ-3C/G3Z - CZ-3B/G2 minus two boosters. GTO capability 3.7 tonnes.CZ-3B/YZ-1 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 m diameter 4200Z fairing and the planned GEO direct insertion upper stage (probably the one using RP-1/H2O2 fuel as exhibited in various aerospace exhibits over the past several years), will be used for future COMPASS system launchesCZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launchesMaybe someone can help to check which launch uses the sub-variants as described above? The CZ3B/YZ1 is also a CZ3B/G3Z/YZ1? 长征三号乙改三Z型/远征一号?
Two interesting photos posted on 9ifly. No info available.
Quote from: Satori on 11/17/2018 10:26 pmTwo interesting photos posted on 9ifly. No info available.Serial number is 1901H, so it is the first CZ-2D produced in 1991 and launched in 1992.
<snip> However, I've wondered why almost all Chinese carrier rockets are named for the Long March. Does anyone know who first suggesting naming China's rockets in honor of the Long March?
Starting here, there was a discussion which resulted in the conclusion that the CZ-3A was retired, with its last launch being that of BD-2 I7 on July 9, 2018.I find no upcoming launches of a CZ-3C variant. Its most recent launch was of the last BD-2 satellite, BD-2 G8, last May 17. Is the CZ-3C retired as well?
Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (TSLC). New launch pad. For which missiles?
The launch pad for the CZ-2E is no. 91 ?https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/cz-2fg.htm
Which is the logic behind the release of launch patchese for chinese launches? Why there are always patches if the launcher is for example a Long March 4C and there are never ones if the launcher if for example a Long March 3B or a 2C? I know it's a stupid question but I've been asking myself this since I noticed the weird pattern.
I was trying to get my Chinese launchers files sorted out, and I wanted to try to identify the serial numbers used by each of the FB-1 flights, and the corresponding pictures. After some research on Baidu, I found several posts that claim three serial numbers (2703X for the first orbital flight, 8701 and 1802 for the last two). I found this satisfactory, until I compared it with the photos I had. And of course, the serial numbers that these sites attributed to the Shijian-2 flights don't match to those that were on the rockets.I tried to compile everything I could determine here on this small diagram. I hoped I would understand all that better, but it only made me question the few information I thought were right.I also found a serial number on an FB-1 that I don't understand at all, "XCZ-1 1802". 1802 is a serial number I had found for the last orbital flight (which is not the case considering the JSSW on top), but what is XCZ-1? It's not a CZ-1, nor even the same missile... A provisional name before FB-1 is adopted? This would potentially be one of the first FB-1 flights?So if someone understands anything about this, or has information about the launchers and their serial numbers, don't hesitate to reply, the early days of the Chinese space history are even more confusing than the current period...
風暴一號火箭,又名新长征一号,由上海市第二機電工業局(今上海航天技术研究院)設計,布局与长征二号丙基本相同,1969年8月开始研制,於1972年8月首次進行遙測試驗火箭發射,取得了成功;在1973年9月18日和1974年7月12日的兩次發射科學實驗衛星時遭到失敗;1975年7月該火箭成功將中國第一顆質量超過1噸的衛星送上太空;1981年9月該火箭「一箭三星」成功發射实践二号、实践二号甲、实践二号乙,這是中國首次用一枚火箭同時發射3顆衛星。風暴一號火箭在中國酒泉衛星發射中心共進行了11次飛行,取得了7次成功,共發射了6顆低軌道衛星和成功地進行了兩次低彈道發射實驗。該火箭於1982年停用。在風暴一號的技術基礎上,發展了長征四號系列運載火箭。
After some research on Baidu, I found several posts that claim three serial numbers (2703X for the first orbital flight, 8701 and 1802 for the last two).I also found a serial number on an FB-1 that I don't understand at all, "XCZ-1 1802". 1802 is a serial number I had found for the last orbital flight (which is not the case considering the JSSW on top), but what is XCZ-1?
I would like to have your opinion on this?In another forum about China space flight, there was a post regarding the different launch sites at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center.The poster says the following...There are a total of eight launchpads, with six being active and two retired:– LC-90: for launching CZ-2F;– LC-94: for launching CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C;– LC-95A/B: for launching CZ-11, KZ-1A, KZ-11, KT-2, CERES-1, SQX-1, etc.;– LC-96: for launching ZQ-2 rockets from the private launch company LandSpace;– LC-130: for launching rockets from the private launch provider Zhongke;– LC-138: for launching CZ-2/2C/2D;– LC-5020: built for launching the now long-retired CZ-1 and China's first satellite (Dongfanghong-1).130 and 5020 are now deactivated.How should we write the designations of the launch complexes? I have been using, for example, LC43/94 for the launch pad for CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C. Do you think this is correct, or should we only use LC-94?Using LC43/94 is similar with the notation used for Russian launches, like LC31/6 (LC31 PU-6) for the Soyuz launch pad at Baikonur.Also, for years, I used the LC43/91 designation for the CZ-2F. Is this correct, or is LC-90 as the poster says?Feedbacks are welcomed!
I would like to have your opinion on this?In another forum about China space flight, there was a post regarding the different launch sites at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center.The poster says the following...There are a total of eight launchpads, with six being active and two retired:– LC-90: for launching CZ-2F;– LC-94: for launching CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C;– LC-95A/B: for launching CZ-11, KZ-1A, KZ-11, KT-2, CERES-1, SQX-1, etc.;– LC-96: for launching ZQ-2 rockets from the private launch company LandSpace;– LC-130: for launching rockets from the private launch provider Zhongke;– LC-138: for launching CZ-2/2C/2D;– LC-5020: built for launching the now long-retired CZ-1 and China's first satellite (Dongfanghong-1).138 and 5020 are now deactivated.How should we write the designations of the launch complexes? I have been using, for example, LC43/94 for the launch pad for CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C. Do you think this is correct, or should we only use LC-94?Using LC43/94 is similar with the notation used for Russian launches, like LC31/6 (LC31 PU-6) for the Soyuz launch pad at Baikonur.Also, for years, I used the LC43/91 designation for the CZ-2F. Is this correct, or is LC-90 as the poster says?Feedbacks are welcomed!Mod edit corrected typo
Great summary! I would like to use this information to update the Wikipedia pages about the Jiuquan site, but I'm having problems in finding all the correspondences. As of now on Wikipedia the launch sites are grouped into three different areas. Launch Area 2 (the one containing LC-138 and LC-5020) and Launch Area 4 (corresponding to Site 43) are already aknowledged in your summary, but there's also a Launch Area 3 in the list described as containing 2 launch pads for DF-1, DF-2 and R-2 rockets (at coordinates 41.283190°N, 100.304706°E and 41.280457°N, 100.304582°E). Are those two pads officially considered part of JSLC? And how would those fit into the notation used in your summary?Also a couple of further questions, are the newly built commercial pads (LC-95, 96, 130 and the Tianlong-2 one) considered as part of Site 43? And is the designation of the Tianlong-2 pad known?
Quote from: Satori on 03/22/2023 03:42 pmI would like to have your opinion on this?In another forum about China space flight, there was a post regarding the different launch sites at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center.The poster says the following...There are a total of eight launchpads, with six being active and two retired:– LC-90: for launching CZ-2F;– LC-94: for launching CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C;– LC-95A/B: for launching CZ-11, KZ-1A, KZ-11, KT-2, CERES-1, SQX-1, etc.;– LC-96: for launching ZQ-2 rockets from the private launch company LandSpace;– LC-130: for launching rockets from the private launch provider Zhongke;– LC-138: for launching CZ-2/2C/2D;– LC-5020: built for launching the now long-retired CZ-1 and China's first satellite (Dongfanghong-1).138 and 5020 are now deactivated.How should we write the designations of the launch complexes? I have been using, for example, LC43/94 for the launch pad for CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C. Do you think this is correct, or should we only use LC-94?Using LC43/94 is similar with the notation used for Russian launches, like LC31/6 (LC31 PU-6) for the Soyuz launch pad at Baikonur.Also, for years, I used the LC43/91 designation for the CZ-2F. Is this correct, or is LC-90 as the poster says?Feedbacks are welcomed!Mod edit corrected typoGreat summary! I would like to use this information to update the Wikipedia pages about the Jiuquan site, but I'm having problems in finding all the correspondences. As of now on Wikipedia the launch sites are grouped into three different areas. Launch Area 2 (the one containing LC-138 and LC-5020) and Launch Area 4 (corresponding to Site 43) are already aknowledged in your summary, but there's also a Launch Area 3 in the list described as containing 2 launch pads for DF-1, DF-2 and R-2 rockets (at coordinates 41.283190°N, 100.304706°E and 41.280457°N, 100.304582°E). Are those two pads officially considered part of JSLC? And how would those fit into the notation used in your summary?Also a couple of further questions, are the newly built commercial pads (LC-95, 96, 130 and the Tianlong-2 one) considered as part of Site 43? And is the designation of the Tianlong-2 pad known?