-
China launchers Q&A
by
Satori
on 09 Dec, 2010 10:08
-
A new Q&A thread for the Chinese launchers.
I'm searching for information about the CZ-2D Chang Zheng-2D launch vehicle. The CGWIC gives some figures about this launcher but other sites give other distinctive numbers.
Does anyone has some trustworthy numbers for the CZ-2D vheicle characteristics?
Thanks!
-
#1
by
powerplay2009
on 09 Dec, 2010 13:17
-
There are two many parameters. Tell me which are the main parameters of your interest. I can dig it out for you.
-
#2
by
Satori
on 09 Dec, 2010 13:41
-
There are two many parameters. Tell me which are the main parameters of your interest. I can dig it out for you.
The main parameters I have for the CZ-2D are the following. Are they correct?
Stage 1 Stage 2 Vernier engines
Dimeter (m) 3,35 3,35
Stage length (m) 27,910 10,9
Mass (kg) 192.700 39.550
Propolent mass (kg) 183.200 35.550
Propolent N2O4/UDMH N2O4/UDMH N2O4/UDMH
Engine YF-20B YF-23 4 x YF-25
Força (kN) 2.961,6 742,04 47,1
Specific impulse (m/s) 289 297 282
Spf impulse (sea level) (s) 259 260 260
Burn time (s) 170 295
Mass (kg) 232.250
Lenth (m) 41,056
Fairing diameter (m) 3,35
Fairing length (m) 6,983
Payload capacity SSO (kg) 1.300
There is also a streched version of the CZ-2D. What are the main differences?
-
#3
by
Salo
on 09 Dec, 2010 16:32
-
http://www.sinodefence.com/space/launcher/changzheng2.aspThe 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.
-
#4
by
Salo
on 09 Dec, 2010 16:34
-
-
#5
by
Salo
on 09 Dec, 2010 16:48
-
-
#6
by
Yarrah
on 09 Dec, 2010 17:57
-
Great thread. I have two questions:
1. Is it true that from now on all comsats launched by China will be launched on a CZ 3B/E rocket?
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?
-
#7
by
Yarrah
on 09 Dec, 2010 18:03
-
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?
-
#8
by
Salo
on 09 Dec, 2010 19:42
-
-
#9
by
powerplay2009
on 10 Dec, 2010 02:28
-
Satori， you are right. And there is no third stage. But there is one module called ETS,
radius 0.99m
Propolent HTPB
Engine SRM
length 1.5m
Force 2744 (N*s/kg)
-
#10
by
osiossim
on 10 Dec, 2010 09:15
-
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?
CGWIC announcement is right.
-
#11
by
Satori
on 10 Dec, 2010 18:38
-
I'm looking for CZ-2E images, mainly any images related to the January 25, 1995 Apstar-2 launch failure.
Thanks!
-
#12
by
Satori
on 11 Dec, 2010 17:28
-
I'm looking for CZ-2E images, mainly any images related to the January 25, 1995 Apstar-2 launch failure.
Thanks!
Found this videos on YouTube... I think that on the second video we can see the CZ-2E (Y1) launch pad abort on March 22, 1992; the January 26th, 1995 CZ-2E (Y6) rocket crash; and the St. Valentins massacre on February 14th, 1996 with the CZ-3B (Y1) launch vehicle.
-
#13
by
Satori
on 12 Dec, 2010 17:13
-
Is it possible to identify when this two CZ-2C were launched?
-
#14
by
go4mars
on 24 Dec, 2010 05:04
-
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700m.htmZhang Guitian (Apparently a Chinese "acamedician") was talking at a conference in 2006 referring to Chinese plans to build something on the scale the UR-700M.
Does anyone know more about this/able to verify/dispel it? Or know where it was discussed on another thread?
Thanks.
-
#15
by
limen4
on 03 Jan, 2011 19:48
-
Is it possible to identify when this two CZ-2C were launched?
Rui, not a definitive identification of the launches. But I found some images which maybe give some hints.
The first image shows maybe the second truck which transports the first stage. A launch vehicle number is seen - Y802302 (?).
The second image is from a philatelic cover which commemorates the first commercial piggyback payload. The brown smoke plume at the first stage seems to correspond with those of the very left image in the launch sequence.
Finally an image from the August 1988 launch.
-
#16
by
panzmead
on 14 Jan, 2011 21:05
-
All,
would anyone be able to share any information regarding the (assumed) foam insulation of the cryogenic CZ-3(A thru C) third stage? Of interest is (a) is it bonded on foam, ala the Ariane 1-4 third stages, or sprayed on foam, ala the Delta IV stages, (b) is it exposed or covered with MLI (as on some Centaur stages), (c) are there any good photos of the foam, perhaps during application, finishing, painting (?), etc., and (d) are there published or known designation(s) and physical characteristics, principally the mass density, of the foam?
If my supposition of foam is incorrect, clarification would be welcome.
Any information is most appreciated,
Phillip Anz-Meador
-
#17
by
Stan Black
on 06 Sep, 2011 18:59
-
-
#18
by
Liss
on 09 Sep, 2011 19:28
-
Stan,
CALT (Beijing) designed and produced CZ-3 third stage (LOX/LH2) while SAST used to build first and second stages.
-
#19
by
Liss
on 09 Sep, 2011 19:58
-
Finally 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.
-
#20
by
Liss
on 09 Sep, 2011 20:40
-
Here is another question on CZ-2C.
My understanding is that there were three basic versions of it:
(1) The initial 190-192 metric ton vehicle in use from 1974 till 1993 (four CZ-2 and eleven CZ-2C), actual payload of 1800-2100 kg;
(2) The Iridium version of 213-214 metric tons flown in 1997-2004 (seven Iridiums, TC-1, TC-2, SY-1 and SY-2) with stretched second stage, quoted payload of 2500-2800 kg;
(3) The current version of 233 metric tons flown since 2004 (10 vehicles) with stretched first stage, actual payload of 3900 kg.
Only one Chinese source gives some data for the current version,
http://cn.cgwic.com/LaunchServices/LaunchVehicle/LM2C.html (note fuel load figures in the third row of the table which are different from 143+35 and 143+55 for the first two versions). 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)
In the upper photo, first stage from the lower blue ring to the interstage struts is equal to 3.5 levels of service structure, the second stage is another 2.5 levels high and the payload shroud is almost two levels more.
In the lower photo, first stage is definitely four levels high.
Mod Edit: Do not embed images
-
#21
by
Phillip Clark
on 10 Sep, 2011 07:29
-
Regarding the information on the link which Igor has provided:
http://cn.cgwic.com/LaunchServices/LaunchVehicle/LM2C.html First, the launch record omits the launch failure of November 1974.
My understanding has always been that the November 1974 launch failure plus the FSW launches of 1975, 1976 and 1978 all used the original CZ-2 aka CZ-2A launch vehicle, with the 2C only being introduced in 1982. Note that in Stan Black's listing the 1982 CZ-2C is "Y1", indicating the first flight.
Looking at the CZ-3B entry, I see that the differences between that and the CZ-3B/E are in the strap-on and first stage propellant masses: the second and third stages are identical.
-
#22
by
Liss
on 10 Sep, 2011 08:52
-
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?
-
#23
by
input~2
on 10 Sep, 2011 09:13
-
Here is another question on CZ-2C.
....
To add to this discussion, here are two tables extracted from CGWIC "LM-2C" leaflets respectively published in 2009 and 2011.
There are indeed differences in the various lengths..
-
#24
by
Liss
on 10 Sep, 2011 10:24
-
Input~2, thank you for the tables. It's very interesting to see even larger estimate of current CZ-2C launch mass, 245 metric tons. Don't know if this version has been already flown.
As usual, there is conflict within and between the two tables and the plain logic. One meter of CZ-2C tankage length with 3.35 m diameter is equivalent to 8.8 m3 of propellant and -- for UDMH/N2O4 -- to 10.5 tons of load. So when launch mass goes from 233 to 245 metric tons, you may expect stretching the vehicle one meter or so (which is indeed shown in the table) in either stage or both. Again, the first stage load supports the total mass increase but the stage lengths do not conform with other data. It seems that stage length is the less reliable parameter in such tables.
-
#25
by
limen4
on 10 Sep, 2011 11:28
-
Finally 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.
Yes of course there is no guarantee that the image on the philatelic envelope shows really the Aug 5th 1988 launch. But Jianbing-1 (FSW-0) and Jianbing-1A (FSW-1) had the same design. As far as I know, only the camera system was changed for mapping purposes. The new spacecraft design you mentioned was only introduced by Jianbing-1B (FSW-2). In case of Freja a cylindrical adapter was added to the FSW-1 to accommodate the Freja payload.
My conclusion is that the image on the philatelic envelope could show the Aug 5th 1988 launch. I upload images of the FSW-1-payload used for the Aug 5th 1988 launch (a copy from a sticker) and the arrangement of Freja and the corresponding FSW-1 payload. Enclosed the philatelic envelop I also found a (very bad) b/w copy from a Remin Ribao newspaper cutout, which shows the launch on Aug 5th 1988.
-
#26
by
Liss
on 10 Sep, 2011 11:37
-
limen4, thank you! Now I strongly believe you are correct.
By the way, launch time in Renmin Ribao is given as 16:30 Beijing Summer Time, now abandoned.
-
#27
by
Stan Black
on 10 Sep, 2011 13:14
-
-
#28
by
Liss
on 10 Sep, 2011 14:36
-
Found a mention of the 245 ton version in a Chinese source -- Taikong Tansuo 2007 #8. Unfortunately no more details in the text.
http://www.qikan.com.cn/MagDetails/1009-6205/2007/8.htmlhttp://special.cpst.net.cn/19992009/ht/hj/_/241594199.html1978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。
Google Translate:
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.
Even earlier mention exists in the FSW-19 launch report of 2004 which used for the first time the third CZ-2C version:
http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2004-08-30/05243528856s.shtml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.
-
#29
by
Liss
on 10 Sep, 2011 15:29
-
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)
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.
-
#30
by
input~2
on 10 Sep, 2011 16:36
-
Found 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 results
I 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 t
http://www.calt.com/cpyfw/yzhj/cp/2009123015071136e9f8.html(dated 2009-12)
-
#31
by
Stan Black
on 10 Sep, 2011 16:40
-
-
#32
by
input~2
on 10 Sep, 2011 16:51
-
-
#33
by
Liss
on 10 Sep, 2011 19:06
-
-
#34
by
input~2
on 10 Sep, 2011 19:44
-
For the total length of the 245t version, CGWIC seems once again isolated with its 43m value...
-
#35
by
Stan Black
on 11 Sep, 2011 10:19
-
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)
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.
So the 162 fuel load figure, and 213 lift-off mass are misleading?
Chang Zheng 2C | Stage 1
Propellant
Mass | Stage 2
Propellant
Mass | Total
Lift-off
Mass |
Missions |
| 长征二号丙 | 143 | 35 | 192 | Jianbing 1
Jianbing 1A |
| 长征二号丙（加长） | 143 | 55 | 213 | Shiyan Weixing 1&2
Iridium
Tance |
| 长征二号丙（再加长） | 172 | 55 | 245 | Jianbing 4
Shijian 8
Haiyang 1B
Yaogan Weixing 6
Shijian 11
Huanjing 1 |
-
#36
by
Liss
on 11 Sep, 2011 10:34
-
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 :-)
-
#37
by
Stan Black
on 11 Sep, 2011 17:28
-
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 :-)
Found a break down of lengths for the CZ-4A
http://www.space.cetin.net.cn/docs/ht9902/ht990206.htm
-
#38
by
Stan Black
on 12 Sep, 2011 14:34
-
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 :-)
Found a break down of lengths for the CZ-4A
http://www.space.cetin.net.cn/docs/ht9902/ht990206.htm
I give up… I too cannot figure out those stage lengths
-
#39
by
jcm
on 14 Sep, 2011 01:27
-
I'm still confused about the SD, SM and SMA kick stages used for Iridium, Tan Ce and HJ-1A/B - lots of different versions of mass and size out there. One stage has 2620 kg propellant 309 kg dry (described in a paper at IAC 2004) - I gather this is the Tan Ce's SM? One is apparently only 22 kg propellant - is this the SMA?
And the SD had a motor which was 125 kg prop 33 kg dry but probably 550 kg total dry for the stage (rather than just the motor).
Clarification and confirmation would be welcome.
-
#40
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 28 Jan, 2012 14:20
-
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 = L172
1st stage of CZ-3B/E / CZ-2F = L186
1st stage of CZ-2D / CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L183
2nd stage of CZ-3A = L30
2nd stage of CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L35
2nd stage of CZ-3B / CZ-3B/E / CZ-3C = L45
2nd stage of CZ-2C / CZ-2D = L55
2nd stage of CZ-2F = L86
3rd stage of CZ-3A / CZ-3B / CZ-3B/E / CZ-3C = H18
3rd stage of CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L12
Booster stage of CZ-3B/E / CZ-2F (pre-TG-1) / CZ-3C (with propellant offload?)= L40
Booster stage of CZ-3B (original) = L38
Booster stage of CZ-2F (2011 version) = L4?
-
#41
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 29 Jan, 2012 09:57
-
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 = L172
1st stage of CZ-3B/E / CZ-2F = L186
1st stage of CZ-2D / CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L183
2nd stage of CZ-3A = L30
2nd stage of CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L35
2nd stage of CZ-3B / CZ-3B/E / CZ-3C = L45
2nd stage of CZ-2C / CZ-2D = L55
2nd stage of CZ-2F = L86
3rd stage of CZ-3A / CZ-3B / CZ-3B/E / CZ-3C = H18
3rd stage of CZ-4B / CZ-4C = L12
Booster stage of CZ-3B/E / CZ-2F (pre-TG-1) / CZ-3C (with propellant offload?)= L40
Booster stage of CZ-3B (original) = L38
Booster stage of CZ-2F (2011 version) = L4?
Following my earlier post, I've asked the same question on a Chinese forum. Here's the answer:
CZ-2C (since 2004): L172+L55
CZ-2D (since 2003): L182+L53
CZ-2F (since 1999): 4xL41+L186+L84
CZ-2F/G (since 2011): 4xL45+L186+L84
CZ-3A: L172+L30+H18
CZ-3B (since 1996): 4xL38+L172+L45+H18
CZ-3B/E (since 2007): 4xL41+L186+L45+H18
CZ-3C (original design): 2xL38+L172+L45+H18
CZ-3C (since 2008): 2xL41+L186+L45+H18
CZ-4B/CZ-4C: L182+L34+L14
Source
-
#42
by
Satori
on 29 Jan, 2012 12:17
-
Very interesting! Thank you Galactic!
-
#43
by
Victory O
on 01 Feb, 2012 08:12
-
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......
-
#44
by
vill
on 16 Feb, 2012 04:31
-
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......
Here is link on similar report - maybe same, dont know(somewhat shortened and without graphics)
http://newscontent.cctv.com/news.jsp?fileId=129307Also, is the rocket on the right (on infographics) LM-5? I think so, according to numbers, but not sure. Will it use liquid propellant boosters, or not yet known?
-
#45
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 07 Oct, 2013 04:19
-
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-variant
CZ-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 fairing
CZ-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 2012
CZ-3B/G2 - the original
enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007
CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairing
CZ-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 launches
CZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launches
Maybe someone can help to check which launch uses the sub-variants as described above?
-
#46
by
russianhalo117
on 08 Oct, 2013 15:18
-
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-variant
CZ-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 fairing
CZ-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 2012
CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007
CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairing
CZ-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 launches
CZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launches
Maybe 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.
-
#47
by
Satori
on 08 Oct, 2013 18:35
-
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-variant
CZ-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 fairing
CZ-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 2012
CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007
CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairing
CZ-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 launches
CZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launches
Maybe 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.
Copy that! That's a good idea! I'll work on it. All help will be welcomed!
-
#48
by
Dante80
on 03 Nov, 2016 14:48
-
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?
-
#49
by
edkyle99
on 03 Nov, 2016 15:03
-
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?
I believe that CZ-11 may be based on the DF-31 series solid fuel ballistic missile already in China's inventory. The canister used to launch CZ-11 was similar to launch canisters used by the road-mobile DF-31A.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/cz11.html - Ed Kyle
-
#50
by
Dante80
on 03 Nov, 2016 15:57
-
That was my first thought too (DF-41 is also much bigger than it). Thanks for the prompt reply.
-
#51
by
jcm
on 18 Dec, 2016 07:22
-
http://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a user
manual 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?
-
#52
by
plutogno
on 18 Dec, 2016 12:36
-
it took me a while, but I managed to download the KZ-1 user manual
-
#53
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 18 Dec, 2016 12:39
-
http://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a user
manual 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.
-
#54
by
jcm
on 18 Dec, 2016 15:18
-
http://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a user
manual 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'T
based on a military missile. But I'm not aware of a comparable diameter Chinese solid missile except DF-31/DF-41
which I understand is a CALT/ARMT product.
-
#55
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 18 Dec, 2016 15:44
-
http://build.whir.net/htkg/index_23.aspx shows the new KZ-11 rocket (there's even a putative link to a user
manual 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'T
based on a military missile. But I'm not aware of a comparable diameter Chinese solid missile except DF-31/DF-41
which I understand is a CALT/ARMT product.
It's probably a new design, especially since IIRC it uses carbon fiber casings (which reminds me that I need to translate all relevant materials on the KZ series to here soon....sigh).
-
#56
by
zotiraki
on 17 Jan, 2017 14:56
-
-
#57
by
zzabur
on 18 Jan, 2017 07:11
-
-
#58
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 18 Jan, 2017 08:52
-
-
#59
by
Moon Rabbit
on 19 Oct, 2017 03:35
-
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?
.
.
2015
205 (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-8
207 (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-1
209 - CZ-2D (Y21) - September 14 (0442) - JSLC, LC43/603 - Gaofen-9
-
#60
by
Stan Black
on 19 Oct, 2017 18:59
-
Need help with regards to reading the thread in the sticky https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30673.0
There 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?
.
.
2015
205 (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-8
207 (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-1
209 - CZ-2D (Y21) - September 14 (0442) - JSLC, LC43/603 - Gaofen-9
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36645.msg1320775#msg1320775
-
#61
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Oct, 2017 02:46
-
Need help with regards to reading the thread in the sticky https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30673.0
There 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?
.
.
2015
205 (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-8
207 (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-1
209 - CZ-2D (Y21) - September 14 (0442) - JSLC, LC43/603 - Gaofen-9
First field you question: The entry format for Chinese Launch authorization code as issued by the Launch Control Centre
Second field you question: The entry format for the full launch time minus the Day. International precise short time format is:
Julian Day or JDay (000 to 366) then Hour (00 to 23) then Minute (00 to 59) then Second (00 to 59) then Millisecond (000 to 999) Then ZULU Time (UTC) or LOCAL Time.
That is DDD:HH:MM:SS.MS ZULU or JD: 000:00:00:00.000 ZULU (alternate precise short format is 000:0000:00.000 ZULU).
-
#62
by
Moon Rabbit
on 20 Oct, 2017 13:56
-
Thank you.
-
#63
by
Liss
on 08 Nov, 2017 18:23
-
My browser alarms me that the 9ifly.cn forum is now regarded as a Reported Attack Page. Is there a real threat?
-
#64
by
Skyrocket
on 08 Nov, 2017 18:52
-
My browser alarms me that the 9ifly.cn forum is now regarded as a Reported Attack Page. Is there a real threat?
Likely yes. I have checked the site with Sucuri, which confirms, that it has been compromised and could be harmful:
https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/9ifly.cn/
-
#65
by
Stan Black
on 15 Feb, 2018 11:50
-
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-variant
CZ-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 fairing
CZ-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 2012
CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007
CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairing
CZ-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 launches
CZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launches
Maybe 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?
-
#66
by
VDD1991
on 12 Nov, 2018 03:15
-
We all remember the Long March as a crucial moment in pre-1949 Chinese communist history because Mao Zedong and the Chinese communists saw the march as a sign how they could persist in the face of attacks by the Kuomintang. 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?
-
#67
by
russianhalo117
on 12 Nov, 2018 14:51
-
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-variant
CZ-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 fairing
CZ-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 2012
CZ-3B/G2 - the original enhanced CZ-3B, with lengthened first stage and boosters, uses the 4.0 m diameter 4000F fairing, first flown in 2007
CZ-3B/G3 - enhanced CZ-3B with the 4.2 diameter 4200F fairing
CZ-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 launches
CZ-3C/YZ-1 - CZ-3B/YZ-1 minus two boosters, will be used for future COMPASS system launches
Maybe 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?
Its been a while since 2013 but there is reportedly development complete G4, G4Z, G5, and G5Z versions of CZ-3B and CZ-3C. CZ-3A upgrade programme appears to be frozen and possibly cancelled. Skyrocket has a reference to the standard G5 versions on his site but not much is known about the new versions.
-
#68
by
Satori
on 17 Nov, 2018 22:26
-
Two interesting photos posted on 9ifly. No info available.
-
#69
by
anik
on 18 Nov, 2018 06:13
-
Two 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.
-
#70
by
Alter Sachse
on 18 Nov, 2018 09:07
-
Two 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.
That was on 9.08.1992 (1992 Aug 9) with a FSW-2 satellite.
-
#71
by
limen4
on 18 Nov, 2018 10:03
-
Two interesting photos posted on 9ifly. No info available.
Another image of the same launcher from a souvenir enveloppe. I guess that the pictures were made during a launch excercise in 1992.
-
#72
by
zhangmdev
on 18 Nov, 2018 11:19
-
<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?
Here is the official explanation, but in Chinese. Basically it was suggested by the designers and approved by the leaders. The Long March 1 project started around the eve of the cultural revolution, they had very limited options naming it. Cannot use historical or mythical figure. East wind, red dawn is everywhere. Quoting poems of Mao seems a safe choice.
http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758968/n6758973/c6771530/content.htmlNot all Chinese launch vehicles are called Long March. Feng Bao (Storm) was developed by Shanghai. It was a part of the power struggle between Beijing and Shanghai. Shanghai lost, so Feng Bao was no more.
-
#73
by
Salo
on 03 Jan, 2019 21:19
-
-
#74
by
zubenelgenubi
on 26 Oct, 2019 22:56
-
-
#75
by
Alter Sachse
on 27 Oct, 2019 08:17
-
-
#76
by
Yarrah
on 09 Nov, 2020 08:27
-
I'm trying to find out which launch sites / pads in the JSLC area all the new privately developed Chinese rockets are currently using. Any idea which pas the following rockets use, what their official names are and where they are located?
- Ceres-1
- Kuaizhou-1A
- Kuaizhou-11
- Jielong 1
- CZ-11
- Shian QuXian-1 (Hyperbola-1)
- Zhuque-1
- OS-M1
-
#77
by
limen4
on 11 Nov, 2020 19:54
-
There are 2 launch pads (about 5km NE of the known CZ-2/CZ-4 launch pads) which are used for the mentioned rockets. No confirmed designations for those launch pads are known. Based on some images from control center screens I guess that the launch pad for Ceres-1 is called No.95A. This would be in line with No.94 sometimes appeared in connection with the the CZ2/CZ-4 launch complex. And maybe the launch complex for CZ-2F is No.91. Based on designation No. 95A I assume that the neighbouring launchpad is called No.95B. This launch pad was used for KZ-1 launches in 2012 and 2013.
-
#78
by
Alter Sachse
on 11 Nov, 2020 20:10
-
-
#79
by
GELORD
on 11 Nov, 2020 20:55
-
Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (TSLC). New launch pad. For which missiles?
-
#80
by
russianhalo117
on 11 Nov, 2020 23:43
-
Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (TSLC). New launch pad. For which missiles?
Next generation liquid likely CZ-6,7,8 families excluding initial version of CZ-6. They are planned to serve all SLC's with goal of dual pads at all. Existing pads might get converted for versions with no boosters or serve DF-ZF and other DF programmes.
Note there are many construction sites in the photos some of which looks like the beginnings of additional pads and infrastructure.
-
#81
by
limen4
on 12 Nov, 2020 11:30
-
The launch pad for the CZ-2E is no. 91 ?
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/cz-2fg.htm
You are right. It is No.91. My confusion because the pad is sometimes named after project 921, the launchpad was assigned to. No.92 also exists but 8km SW of No.91.
-
#82
by
Fmedici
on 06 May, 2021 22:26
-
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.
-
#83
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 19 May, 2021 13:19
-
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.
There are 2 main CASC institutes that make rockets - CALT in Beijing/Tianjin and SAST in Shanghai. It's SAST (which makes the LM-2D, 4B and 4C in full and parts of others) that gives out these launch patches lately.
-
#84
by
ZachS09
on 03 Jun, 2021 13:26
-
I always rely on Norbert Brügge's website when it comes to rocket specifications.
-
#85
by
spaceflight101com
on 20 Jun, 2021 02:15
-
If I’m still able to post here, please let me apologize – I’ve deleted three of my own posts in this thread, because I do no-longer consider them factually sound.
The first was about the current specifications of the Long March YF-24-powered stage, the second posted the burn times of the two vehicles and the third was questioning the variants of the CZ-1 vehicle.
At least one of those posts included a draft that I do no-longer consider factually sound, so I decided to delete my posts.
Apologies for any confusion!
-
#86
by
Alexander Tli
on 06 Nov, 2021 11:56
-
-
#87
by
Closer to Space
on 10 Dec, 2021 20:47
-
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...
-
#88
by
mikezang
on 10 Dec, 2021 21:41
-
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...
The XCZ is XinChangZheng means New Long March.
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。
-
#89
by
Liss
on 08 Apr, 2022 10:14
-
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?
1702Y = 1972.08.10
2703X = 1973.09.18
8701 = 1979.07.28
1802 = 1981.09.20
First two digits point to the year of production: 17 = 1971, 27 = 1972, 87 = 1978, 18 = 1981.
-
#90
by
Rondaz
on 24 May, 2022 13:55
-
-
#91
by
Rondaz
on 13 Dec, 2022 00:00
-
-
#92
by
Satori
on 22 Mar, 2023 15:42
-
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
-
#93
by
limen4
on 22 Mar, 2023 20:35
-
Thank you Rui for your effort to clear the situation.
The numbering system of the various sites and buildings at JSLC is very confusing. But there seems to be a certain system.
The various sites at JSLC are numbered from 1 to at least 130. Sites 1 to 30 and some more are meanwhile well known. For instance, the launch site where the retired complexes 138 and 5020 are situated is called “Site 2”. Every building on every site has an individual number. For site 2 some numbers are known but unfortunately not for the launch towers. As far as I know the designations 138 and 5020 are not the corresponding numbers but have been the project names under which the towers have been built.
At site 94 (the one where CZ-2C/2D/4B/4C are launched now) the launch tower has the number 9401 and some other buildings/objects (for instance camera positions) have a number of the kind 94xx. The same way of numbering is also used at site 90, i.e the launch tower has very likely the number 9001 and so on.
Site 43 seems to be the site, which houses various assembly buildings near sites 90 and 94.
At site 95 additional characters were used for the various TEL positions.
To sum up - my proposal is to use your designations like LC-90, LC-94 further on. For LC-138 and LC-5020 I would prefer LC-2(138) and LC-2(5020).
-
#94
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Mar, 2023 22:30
-
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!
They adopted the Soviet designation system so historically legacy entries are correct. Only JSLC seems to follow this legacy system. The other launch sites seemed to use a more Western and US designation system the most recent example is LC-9A and upcoming LC-9B at TSLC. We know that all Orbital launchers are in a fenced area known as Site 43 given there used to be linked pictures of many different gate houses with an area sign labelled 43. NK forum still retains the legacy system in their schedules last time I looked several years ago. Also note that I see the alternating LC90 and LC91 every now and then and originates from when a second pad was planned when thaey thought about bringing CZ-2E and the CZ-3 family to JSLC. The ML Pedestal transfer railway has provisions for installing a switch but has straight rails installed indefinitely to date.
-
#95
by
Fmedici
on 31 Mar, 2023 13:53
-
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?
-
#96
by
limen4
on 31 Mar, 2023 17:00
-
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?
I attach an image containing the JSLC site numbers as of 1980. You can see that site 4 do not correspond to a missile launch area but to a former tracking facility near site 3.
Site 3 itself consists of 2 separate truck serviced launch areas.
For completion site 1 is the northern most launch area which was used for cruise missiles at the beginning.
It is a good question which sites belong to JSLC. As far as I understand all sites (including the supporting facilities) for launching SSM, SAM and orbital missions belong to JSLC. It is the same situation as for TSLC where most of the launch areas are used for launching ballistic missiles and only few for satellite missions but nevertheless the whole area is called Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center.
I would recommend to shift the discussion now to the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center thread.
-
#97
by
russianhalo117
on 31 Mar, 2023 18:18
-
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?
Q): Are those two pads officially considered part of JSLC? And how would those fit into the notation used in your summary?
A):
Yes they do.
Reference the other Soviet built cosmodromes, YET the whole cosmodrome is also a part of a larger test and impact range. The latter covers auxiliary bases and airports which report to JSLC control centers.
-
#98
by
Alter Sachse
on 02 Apr, 2023 08:43
-
There is a lot of information about the use of the respective versions of the CZ-3B G2 and -G3. Unfortunately, the publications in this forum are not always exact or they are missing entirely. Together with my hobby friends Andreas from Leipzig and Olaf from Rees, Germany, I checked the many details by means of photo measurements and came to these results (see Excel lists).
By the CZ-3B G2 we mean the more powerful version of the CZ-3B, also the CZ-3BE with the 4,000F payload fairing. The CZ-3B G3 has the 4,200F fairing. The difference in fairings can be seen especially on the lower cone, the angles are noticeably different.
Photo sources are above all the wonderful start reports here in the forum, formerly also the information from 9ifly. And materials on Chinese launchers that were available at the Le Bourget and Berlin trade fairs.
I would be very grateful for any comments or corrections.
source drawing: LM-3A Series Launch Vehicle User's Manual, Issue 2011,Chapter 4
Payload Fairing
-
#99
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 16 Nov, 2023 05:02
-
Per the semi-official China Space News, the Long March 2C "currently has 2 active variants - the basic one and one with the YZ-1S upper stage". This means the earlier 2C/SMA variant with the solid fuel SMA upper stage has been retired.
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......