NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => Chinese Launchers => Topic started by: michaelwy on 02/10/2014 10:48 pm
-
Hi, i wonder if there are any news about the proposed LongMarch 9? If it is supposed to be even more powerful than the SLS. Does anyone know if it will be made, i so, when?
-
Old versions had CZ-9 at 130 t, but recently this has decreased to 100 t. At the moment China is only performing paper studies. A decision was supposed to have been made next year, but it looks like this has been delayed to 2020 or possibly even 2025 due to work on the Chinese modular space station.
-
I'd like to see a splinter thread about a prospective Chinese manned lunar mission architecture using 4 or 5x launches of Long March 5 :) since they don't seem to be in a hurry to develop the Long March 9, and there seems to be no models with lift capability between 25 and 130 metric tons under consideration!
-
I suspect that CALT is going to be plenty busy getting CZ-5 through 7 into service, from a brand new launch site no less. This alone - shifting from the long-used DF-5 based launch vehicles to an entirely new system using new propellants and new engines - will be the biggest change in China space history. It might take a decade.
- Ed Kyle
-
They are not racing anybody. They know that the station and three new rocket families plus new launch site will be a huge undertaking. Probably the biggest push ever in their space program. Meanwhile, they still have to execute the second stage of their lunar plan, with the sample return missions. In the end by 2020 they'll have a much better understanding of long term space missions, lunar navigations and RV, space assembly and heavy launch rockets. It's clear that they'll be studying the problem for another decade and make the decision once they are much wiser/experienced. It's the right path, if I were them.
-
I'd like to see a splinter thread about a prospective Chinese manned lunar mission architecture using 4 or 5x launches of Long March 5 :) since they don't seem to be in a hurry to develop the Long March 9, and there seems to be no models with lift capability between 25 and 130 metric tons under consideration!
I'm guessing you are looking to stir up trouble, huh?
Those kinds of discussions inevitably turn into "But you obviously don't need a HLV to go to the Moon, you can do it with smaller rockets and fuel depots, therefore SLS sucks."
That kind of discussion always devolves to argumentum ad absurdum, with people eventually arguing that because it is possible to do something a certain way, it is therefore the best way to do something. Back around 2007 or so Mike Griffin made a comment in front of Congress that it was possible for the Chinese to use several smaller (non-HLV) rockets to mount a Moon mission. Griffin was not actually saying that China would do this, or that it was the best way to do it. If I remember correctly, he was saying that it was the fastest way for China to do it, and that they could therefore beat NASA back to the Moon that way if they so decided. Of course, space geeks then started charging him with hypocrisy for illustrating the China way while advocating an HLV. But the point of the Constellation approach was to land more people and keep them on the surface longer, not to do it quickly.
Griffin's statement was actually based upon a relatively simple internal study that NASA had performed. I have a chart from that NASA internal study. I've included a poor quality version here because I cannot find my better quality version. I wrote about it in October 2008:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1231/1
There were some presentations by Chinese engineers at the IAF last fall where they outlined possible lunar strategies. They seem to prefer splitting up their missions. Instead of launching everything on a single rocket, they send up the crew separately. But they also seem to be interested in HLVs, thinking that they are the way to go. They don't seem to be looking at the LM5 option. My guess is that they did that already and ruled it out.
Considering that China is unlikely to even decide about sending humans to the Moon until 2025, and will then spend another decade or so to do it, I think they have plenty of time to do studies.
-
I'd like to see a splinter thread about a prospective Chinese manned lunar mission architecture using 4 or 5x launches of Long March 5 :) since they don't seem to be in a hurry to develop the Long March 9, and there seems to be no models with lift capability between 25 and 130 metric tons under consideration!
I'm guessing you are looking to stir up trouble, huh?
Those kinds of discussions inevitably turn into "But you obviously don't need a HLV to go to the Moon, you can do it with smaller rockets and fuel depots, therefore SLS sucks."
Geez, Blackstar, lay off the trigger. How was that response warranted?
-
I'd like to see a splinter thread about a prospective Chinese manned lunar mission architecture using 4 or 5x launches of Long March 5 :) since they don't seem to be in a hurry to develop the Long March 9, and there seems to be no models with lift capability between 25 and 130 metric tons under consideration!
I'm guessing you are looking to stir up trouble, huh?
Those kinds of discussions inevitably turn into "But you obviously don't need a HLV to go to the Moon, you can do it with smaller rockets and fuel depots, therefore SLS sucks."
Geez, Blackstar, lay off the trigger. How was that response warranted?
Geez, Lars, chill out. Note that he used a smiley. I don't use smileys as a matter of policy, but if you want to include one in my post, it would not be inaccurate to do so.
We now return you to our regular program of ambient relaxation music...
-
There were some presentations by Chinese engineers at the IAF last fall where they outlined possible lunar strategies. They seem to prefer splitting up their missions. Instead of launching everything on a single rocket, they send up the crew separately. But they also seem to be interested in HLVs, thinking that they are the way to go. They don't seem to be looking at the LM5 option. My guess is that they did that already and ruled it out.
IIRC, they did look at an option using multiple launches of an LM-5 derivative (as an alternative to the LM-9). I think it was called CZ-5KDY or something (can't find the reference right now). This was supposed to be an LM-5 with a new all-kerolox first stage coupled with 6 (instead of 4) 3.35m boosters; it's performance was supposed to be somewhere in the FH-rage (like 50mT to LEO, or about twice that of the LM-5).
-
I posted a bunch of the IAF presentations on the Chinese lunar studies here a few months ago. You can probably poke around and find them.
-
Thanks for the tips and diagrams, Blackstar - and I truly didn't want to start any kind of argument cycle, guys. But the more I read about Long March 5, the more I think it's going to be a great vehicle! Shenzhou would be a good Command/Service Module with a beefed-up, fueled-up Service Module and I can forsee a two-man Lander powered by a set of the same engines used on the Chang E Descent Stage. If they used all-hypergolics, Long March 5's could send to LEO - from pairs of launchpads - pairs of 25 ton EDS to await rendezvous and docking with 20 ton version Shenzhous or Landers. Then, send the vehicles separately towards the Moon: somewhat like Golden Spike plans to do. With cryogenic Earth Departure Stages instead of storable: 3x stages could send the Shenzhou and lander together on one Trans Lunar Injection.
-
I posted this in the Chang'e-3 thread. You can look at the individual slides there.
-
Here's a hi-res version of the CZ-5 architecture that Blackstar posted. Also attached is a picture of the CZ-5DY. Its payload into LEO is 50 t.
-
Ah! the 50 ton 'sweet spot' of affordability and keeping the launches for a mission architecture to a minimum. That's a wonderful benchmark and a good find - thanks, Steven! :) 4x launches are better than 6x eh?
-
Thanks for the tips and diagrams, Blackstar - and I truly didn't want to start any kind of argument cycle, guys.
I assumed you were being tongue-in-cheek.
-
Here's a hi-res version of the CZ-5 architecture that Blackstar posted.
Where'd you get that version? Did I post it to NSF? That's the scan that I made of a paper presentation that Scott Pace made, so it's really a scan of a color photocopy. I think that I have the original somewhere as an electronic file, having gotten it from Scott, but I just cannot find it.
I believe that Scott explained that this was a back-of-the-envelope kind of thing at NASA, not any kind of detailed engineering assessment. At the time, Mike Griffin was warning ominously (at least he thought so) that the Chinese were going to reach the Moon before the United States went back. Congress then directed NASA to produce a report on Chinese lunar plans. NASA ultimately sent over a "report" that was apparently just a collection of media reports and publicly available documents. That's understandable, because a real report would require including intelligence sources and I doubt that NASA was allowed to do that. In addition, once you poked through the outer crustal layer of ill-informed rhetoric in poorly-written blog and website articles (some of which claimed planned Chinese human landings on the Moon by 2017, or even by 2010!), you found that there was absolutely no evidence that China had a manned lunar program underway. Here we are seven years later and China still doesn't have one underway.
-
Chinese like to think about it for a long time. It has already that they do habe a plan for putting am astronaut on the moon. They just haven't decided when or how. ;-)
But I'm seeing that they are doing like writing a good literature trilogy. They first write the whole history arc as a reaume with no details, just main events. Them write the first chapter. With those lessons they write the second and go and put a bit more detail in the next chapters.
-
Here's a hi-res version of the CZ-5 architecture that Blackstar posted.
Where'd you get that version? Did I post it to NSF?
I probably got the image from NSF, but I don't remember for sure. I don't remember who posted the image. The only information I have is that I saved the image on 18 February 2010.
Here's a chart showing how the Chinese planned to use the CZ-5DY. There would be three launchers, two for the two trans Lunar injection stages and one for the Shenzhou spacecraft, Lunar lander and Lunar orbit insertion stage. Here's also how the CZ-5DY would fit within the existing crewed and Lunar plans. Development would have started this year, with a landing by 2025. Translation for the Chinese text is
Top Arrow
EVA - Space Lab - Space Station ---> Continuous operation
Second Arrow (This is the three small step in the first of three large steps)
Orbit Moon - First Landing - Second Landing - Sample return
Third Arrow (This is the three small step in the second of three large steps)
Moon Orbit Lab - Moon Orbit Rendezvous (merge with sample return) - moon landing
Platform Arrows
Core Rocket Design
Advanced Upper Stage Design
-
I probably got the image from NSF, but I don't remember for sure. I don't remember who posted the image. The only information I have is that I saved the image on 18 February 2010.
Yeah, I probably posted that to NSF here at that time. It's my scan. Unfortunate limitations of scanning from a color photocopy.
-
Attached are two presentations that Chinese officials presented at the IAC in September. One is on a possible lunar project using HLVs. I have not read that one closely. We should all be wary of drawing too many conclusions from papers presented at conferences. This is most likely simply one study that they have done, and they may have done others that they did not present. It does not necessarily represent the way that China will pursue a lunar landing program if they do so.
-
Brilliant! Go China!! 8)
-
Brilliant! Go China!! 8)
Well, you see, I'm dubious. The logical side of my brain (which I try to not use all that often) tells me that it doesn't really matter. I think that the American response to Chinese taikonauts walking on the Moon will be "ho hum, who cares?" Because that seems to be the current response to just about any activity in space. Perhaps that is a justifiable attitude, based upon the knowledge that the United States is still leading in just about every other way in spaceflight.
But the emotional side of my brain says that I would rather see Americans up there again, doing something worthwhile, like gaining the experience necessary to send humans on to Mars. I'm reminded of a recent talk I heard where the title was "Leading, not drifting." The speaker's point was that a lot of other countries--including China--are going to be doing a lot of things on and around the Moon in the very near future, and unless the United States takes a leadership position, it's just going to drift rather aimlessly.
-
Yes, it could be that the US says ho-hum even after China lands on the Moon. The typical response being, "Big Deal. We did that over 50 years ago." However, what will happen when China starts making a significant number of firsts? Like the first four day mission on the Moon, the first woman on the Moon, the first landing on the Lunar far side, the first landing on a Lunar pole, the first two week mission, the first mission to stay a Lunar night, etc. etc. Two options could be an Apollo style recovery to catch up to China and then surpass them by landing on Mars or worse, stay at home.
-
Yes, it could be that the US says ho-hum even after China lands on the Moon. The typical response being, "Big Deal. We did that over 50 years ago." However, what will happen when China starts making a significant number of firsts? Like the first four day mission on the Moon, the first woman on the Moon, the first landing on the Lunar far side, the first landing on a Lunar pole, the first two week mission, the first mission to stay a Lunar night, etc. etc. Two options could be an Apollo style recovery to catch up to China and then surpass them by landing on Mars or worse, stay at home.
I think a possible response (at least from the American public) is "Who cares? We don't care about space anymore. We don't see spaceflight as a measure of a country's technological capabilities just like we don't see steam engine production as a measure of a country's capabilities."
I'm not saying that I would like that answer, but I do think it is a defensible answer.
-
the image creator would appreciate any error found.
suggestions are welcome
Edit: Please *attach* pictures, don't embed huge ones. Img tags removed, OP can attach if they wish.